Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Arizona denied the Rule 135 petition without stating a reason, and in the same order gave its AI steering committee a March 2027 deadline
The order is about a page and a half. It denies the petition in one sentence, gives no reason for doing so, and then says something about judicial accountability that is likely to outlast the denied petition.
Bottom line: The Arizona Supreme Court denied a petition by Court of Appeals Judge Andrew M. Jacobs to adopt a new Rule 135. The order states no reason for the denial. In the same document the Court directed its existing AI steering committee to report by 1 March 2027 on any rules or administrative orders needed to give judicial officers clear, workable standards.
Who this affects: Judicial officers and court administrators in Arizona, and lawyers tracking how state courts are handling AI. Also relevant to anyone drafting a judicial AI policy elsewhere, because the order supplies a statement of principle without a rule attached to it.
Issue date: Filed 27 August 2026, dated the same day and signed by Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer.
What changed: Nothing changed in the rules. No new rule was adopted, and the order does not create one. What is new is a dated reporting obligation on the steering committee and an express statement about where accountability sits.
Analysis: The denial and the reporting deadline sit side by side in the document, and the Court does not say that one caused the other. That is the whole of what the order establishes about its own reasoning.
Primary sources: Arizona Supreme Court Order No. R-26-0020, 27 August 2026 · Arizona Supreme Court order index for R-26-0020
- Instrument
- Order denying petition to adopt Rule 135 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona
- Citation
- Arizona Supreme Court No. R-26-0020, filed 27 August 2026
- Authority
- Supreme Court of Arizona, signed by Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer
- Petitioner
- Court of Appeals Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, petition filed 12 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Arizona
- Status
- Petition denied. No new rule adopted. A report from the steering committee is due on or before 1 March 2027.
- Bindingness
- An order on the Court's rules-petition docket. It disposes of the petition and directs the steering committee. The order does not state whether it has any effect beyond that.
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/ASC-R260020 - 8-27-2026 - FILED - RULES ORDER DENYING PETITION TO ADOPT RULE 135, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.pdf
What the order does
On 27 August 2026 the Supreme Court of Arizona filed an order in the matter of Rule 135, Rules of the Supreme Court, docketed as No. R-26-0020 and signed by Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer.
The order records that on 12 January 2026 Court of Appeals Judge Andrew M. Jacobs filed a petition proposing to adopt a new Rule 135, and that the Court considered the petition, comments, the reply, and a proposed amended rule attached to the reply.
It then denies it, in a single sentence: it is ordered denying the petition to adopt a new Rule 135 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona.
That is the entire disposition. There is no for the reasons stated clause, no separate opinion referred to, and no dissent or concurrence in the document.
The remaining two pages of the four-page document are the service and distribution list.
The Court gave no reason, and that is the story
After the denial the order sets out the Court's posture rather than its reasoning. It says that as part of the Court's ongoing commitment to innovation and improvement of legal services, the Court recognizes the transformative nature artificial intelligence technologies have on the justice system. It notes that on that basis the Court established the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts by Administrative Order No. 2024-33.
None of that is offered as the reason for the denial. The order never says why the petition failed.
So an article cannot say the Court thought a rule premature, or unworkable, or that it preferred to wait and watch, or that it deferred to the steering committee. Those are all plausible and none of them is in the document. The most that can be said is structural: the denial and a new reporting mandate to an existing committee appear in the same order, and the Court does not connect them.
The silence cuts both ways. Because the order gives no reasons, it does not disclose whether the petition was rejected on the merits or on some other basis. What it does not do is foreclose future rulemaking: the directive that follows expressly contemplates any rules or administrative orders that may be necessary.
The sentence worth keeping
The order contains one statement of principle, and it is more portable than the procedural outcome.
The Court recognizes that judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function and emphasizes that no tool, artificial intelligence or otherwise, can substitute for human decision-making or relieve judicial officers of full accountability for their decisions.
Two features of that sentence are worth noticing. It is not limited to artificial intelligence: the phrase artificial intelligence or otherwise puts AI in the same category as every other tool a judge might use, which is a more modest and more durable claim than a technology-specific prohibition would have been.
It does not say a judge may not use a tool. It says using one does not move responsibility for the decision.
The deadline
The order closes with a directive, and this is the operative forward-looking part.
It orders that the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, through its Chair, in light of the exponential pace at which AI technology is advancing, and in addition to submitting its regular reports and recommendations, shall provide a report and recommendation to the Court on or before 1 March 2027 on any rules or administrative orders that may be necessary to provide judicial officers clear, workable standards for the permissible and responsible use of emerging AI technologies.
The verb is shall provide, so the report is mandatory on the committee. It is additional to the committee's existing regular reporting rather than a replacement for it. And the subject matter is deliberately open: any rules or administrative orders that may be necessary.
The phrase clear, workable standards is the Court's own, and it is the closest the document comes to describing what it wants. It points toward usable guidance for judicial officers, not a prohibition. But the order does not say that, and a reader should treat the inference as ours, not the Court's.
What to do about it
For Arizona judicial officers, nothing changes today. There is no new rule, and the Court has now put its accountability principle in the text of an order.
For anyone drafting judicial AI policy in another state, the accountability sentence is the reusable part. It survives a change of tool and does not require the drafter to predict which technologies will matter.
The date to diary is 1 March 2027. That is when the steering committee's report is due, and it is the point at which Arizona's position could change from a statement of principle to a set of rules.
If you are briefing a partner or a bench on this, say that the Court denied the petition without stating why, and that the committee has been given a deadline.
The Supreme Court of Arizona denied the petition to adopt Rule 135 on 27 August 2026 in a single sentence and gave no reason for doing so. The order does not say whether the petition was rejected on the merits, and it does not foreclose future rulemaking: the accompanying directive expressly contemplates any rules or administrative orders that may be necessary. What the order does supply is a statement of principle, that judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function and that no tool, artificial intelligence or otherwise, can substitute for human decision-making or relieve judicial officers of full accountability for their decisions. That formulation is tool-agnostic and turns on accountability rather than prohibition. The operative deadline is 1 March 2027, by which the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts must report on any rules or administrative orders needed to give judicial officers clear, workable standards.
Source File
Open the order PDF for Arizona Supreme Court No. R-26-0020 and confirm four things on its face: the FILED 08/27/2026 stamp in the caption block and the DATED this 27th day of August 2026 line above the signature of Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer; the single operative sentence beginning IT IS ORDERED denying the petition to adopt a new Rule 135, with no reasons clause following it; the paragraph stating that judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function and that no tool, artificial intelligence or otherwise, can substitute for human decision-making or relieve judicial officers of full accountability; and the closing directive requiring the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts to report on or before March 1, 2027. Pages 3 and 4 are the Rule 28 distribution list and contain no substantive text.
The Court recognizes that judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function. Arizona Supreme Court No. R-26-0020, 27 August 2026
FAQ
Does this order restrict how Arizona judges use AI?
No. The Court denied a petition to adopt a new Rule 135, so no new rule was adopted and the order does not prohibit anything. The order does not describe what the proposed Rule 135 would have done, and this report does not either, because the petition itself is not published alongside the order.
Why did the Court deny the petition?
The order does not say. It records that the Court considered the petition, comments, the reply and a proposed amended rule, then denies the petition in one sentence with no reasons clause. Any explanation offered elsewhere is not drawn from the face of the order.
Does the order say anything about judicial responsibility?
Yes, and it is the most quotable part. The Court states that judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function, and that no tool, artificial intelligence or otherwise, can substitute for human decision-making or relieve judicial officers of full accountability for their decisions.
Is a rule still possible in Arizona?
The order does not foreclose one. It directs the Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts to report by 1 March 2027 on any rules or administrative orders that may be necessary to give judicial officers clear, workable standards.
Who brought the petition?
Court of Appeals Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, who filed it on 12 January 2026. The order also refers to a proposed amended rule attached to his reply.
What is the deadline to watch?
1 March 2027, the date by which the steering committee must provide its report and recommendation to the Court. The order makes that report mandatory and additional to the committee's regular reporting.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.