Idaho courts set aside AI pilot to focus on governance

Idaho’s Judicial Branch set aside an initially envisioned artificial intelligence pilot so it could first develop governance, policy, evaluation and readiness processes, a report on the court system’s AI planning says. The report recommends completing that groundwork before pursuing operational AI projects.

The Idaho Supreme Court announced the report’s availability on Oct. 19, 2026. Dated August 2026, the report describes a project launched in September 2025 and lasting approximately 12 months. The National Center for State Courts authored it and provided expertise to a workgroup that included judges, attorneys, information technology professionals and court administrators.

The report proposes an ongoing AI Governance Committee and includes a draft order to establish it, along with a draft acceptable-use policy. The committee and policy remain proposals, not established requirements, and the report does not select an AI tool. The Idaho Supreme Court retains final authority over future AI policies for the court system.

Drafts would set rules before projects begin i

The proposed policy is intended to cover judges, court employees and county employees performing court-related functions. It addresses acceptable and prohibited uses, privacy and confidentiality, human oversight, risk-based governance, judicial work product, and which tools would be approved or not approved.

Under the draft order, the proposed committee would advise on AI governance and submit an initial risk-based project-review policy within 120 days of its first meeting. That deadline would apply only if the committee is formed under the draft order and holds a first meeting.

The report’s roadmap places governance work in the fourth quarter of 2026, lays out phases through 2029 and calls for evaluation to continue afterward. It recommends first identifying operational problems and desired outcomes, then assessing whether AI is an appropriate solution. The roadmap describes a proposed sequence, not a guarantee that each phase will be carried out.

The Supreme Court formally adopted the workgroup’s guiding principles earlier in 2026, the court said. That step was separate from adopting an AI tool or establishing the proposed committee and draft policy.

Report weighs potential benefits and risks i

The report identifies possible benefits of AI use, including efficiency, improved access to justice and support for court personnel. It also discusses concerns about transparency, accountability, privacy, security, human oversight and public trust. It says judicial decision-making must remain the responsibility of judges.

The workgroup gathered stakeholder input through surveys, feedback discussions and consultation. The report’s recommendations focus on creating a process to review future proposals and address risks before any operational project proceeds.

For court users, the report makes recommendations about possible future court operations but does not require them to take action or establish that any court service has changed.