AI Regulation Tracker / Courts and judicial administration
Iowa now gates the AI tools its judges may use, and forbids deferring to what they produce
The Supreme Court of Iowa adopted Court Rules chapter 27 on July 21, 2026. It binds judicial officers and the people who assist them, not the lawyers appearing in front of them, and it is operative January 1, 2027.
What did the Iowa Supreme Court actually adopt?
A rule chapter, not a memorandum. That distinction does most of the work here. Chapter 27 was adopted by supreme court order on July 21, 2026, covers judicial use of artificial intelligence tools in the performance of adjudicative duties, and runs from rule 27.101 through rule 27.107.
It does two things at once. It sets conduct duties on the people who decide cases, and a control on the software those people may point at case material. Most AI-in-courts documents published anywhere so far do only the first, and do it as advice. Rule 27.104 carries the conduct duty, and its text is worth reading closely rather than in summary.
A judicial officer must maintain independent decision-making responsibility and must not delegate responsibility or defer to the work product prepared by use of an artificial intelligence tool in the performance of the judicial officer's adjudicative duties.Iowa Court Rules, rule 27.104
The same rule requires independent verification of the factual and legal sources an AI tool produces. The chapter does not treat AI output as poison. It treats it as unverified material carrying no authority until a human has checked it and taken responsibility for it.
What does "must not defer" forbid, and what does it leave alone?
Rule 27.104 requires that a judicial officer maintain independent decision-making responsibility and not delegate responsibility or defer to AI work product in adjudicative duties. The rule also requires independent verification of factual and legal sources an AI tool produces.
It is not, on its terms, a prohibition on judicial AI use.
Who is bound, and who is not?
Chapter 27 reaches judicial officers and adjudicative assistants. On the bench that means justices, court of appeals judges, district judges, district associate judges, associate juvenile and probate judges, senior judges, judicial hospitalization referees and magistrates. Off the bench it means staff attorneys, law clerks and law students serving as adjudicative assistants.
It does not reach the lawyers or self-represented litigants appearing in those courtrooms, and it expressly excludes "administrative or other duties unrelated to a pending legal proceeding." Anyone reporting this as a new filing rule for the Iowa bar has read it wrong. That scope is why it matters elsewhere: the fabricated-citation cases of the past two years are about what an advocate filed, this one is about what the court itself may run.
Why the approval requirement is a procurement control
Rule 27.106(1) is the provision that will show up in vendor sales cycles.
A judicial officer or adjudicative assistant must not use an artificial intelligence tool for the performance of a judicial officer's adjudicative duties with any judicial case information unless the tool is currently approved by the committee to meet the confidentiality, security, and reliability requirements for that use.Iowa Court Rules, rule 27.106(1)
Read the qualifiers. Approval is not general. It is approval for that use, against three named criteria, and it must be current when the tool is used. A tool cleared for one workflow is not cleared for another, and approval is a state that can lapse rather than a certificate earned once.
The approving body is a judicial branch artificial intelligence innovation and governance committee created by the chapter, and the state court administrator must post the approved-tool list publicly. For a vendor, inclusion on that list determines whether the tool may be used with judicial case information in Iowa. Selling AI into the Iowa judiciary now runs through a committee before it runs through a court, and the result is visible to every competitor. For a court administrator elsewhere, it is a template: one gate, three criteria, one public register.
There is a quieter consequence for everyone else. Once the approved-tool list is public, anyone can see which tools were cleared for use with case information, and when. That is a class of information about court operations that has not previously been available in any state, and it will eventually be asked about in a courtroom rather than in a procurement meeting.
What do the two operative rules require?
Chapter 27 does its work through two provisions, one aimed at the judicial officer and one aimed at the software. Set out side by side, they show where the chapter binds and where it stops.
| Element | What chapter 27 provides |
|---|---|
| Conduct duty (r. 27.104) | A judicial officer must maintain independent decision-making responsibility and must not delegate responsibility or defer to AI work product in the performance of adjudicative duties |
| Verification duty (r. 27.104) | Independent verification of the factual and legal sources an AI tool produces |
| Tool gate (r. 27.106(1)) | No AI tool may be used with judicial case information for adjudicative duties unless it is currently approved by the committee for that use, on confidentiality, security and reliability |
| Approving body | The judicial branch artificial intelligence innovation and governance committee, with the approved-tool list posted publicly by the state court administrator |
| Who is bound | Judicial officers and adjudicative assistants, including staff attorneys, law clerks and law students |
| Who is not bound | Lawyers and self-represented litigants. Administrative or other duties unrelated to a pending legal proceeding are excluded. |
| Legal character | Binding court rules, adopted by supreme court order rather than issued as guidance |
| Dates | Adopted July 21, 2026. Operative January 1, 2027. |
The binding-or-guidance distinction is not academic. Guidance describes what a careful judge would do and relies on each office holder to do it. A court rule sets a standard against which a departure can be identified and addressed through the judiciary's own supervisory machinery. Iowa chose the second form, and it paired the conduct duty with a procurement gate in the same chapter.
What should be done during the runway to January 1, 2027?
Five months is not long to stand up an approval process, and the gap between adoption and operation is the useful part of this order.
If you administer a court, the work is inventory before policy. Find out what is already in use in chambers, including the tools nobody procured, then decide which go to the committee and which stop on January 1. An approval process with no submissions in November becomes a queue in December.
If you sell into courts, assume the criteria in rule 27.106(1) are the criteria: confidentiality, security, reliability, assessed for a specific use. Documentation answering those three, per workflow, is what a committee can act on. Marketing material is not.
If you litigate in Iowa, chapter 27 does not, by its own terms, alter what you file. It does mean that from January the judiciary's own AI use will be governed by a written standard with a public tool list behind it.
And if your court is drafting something similar, the choice Iowa made is the one to study. It did not write an ethics reminder. It wrote a conduct duty and a procurement gate, in the same chapter.
Frequently asked questions
Does Iowa Court Rules chapter 27 apply to lawyers filing in Iowa courts?
No. Chapter 27 reaches judicial officers and adjudicative assistants performing adjudicative duties. It does not govern what lawyers or self-represented litigants file.
Does chapter 27 ban judges from using AI?
No. It forbids treating AI output as authority. Rule 27.104 states that a judicial officer must maintain independent decision-making responsibility and must not delegate responsibility or defer to the work product prepared by use of an artificial intelligence tool in the performance of adjudicative duties. Use that is verified and independently assessed is not prohibited by that rule.
What does the tool pre-approval requirement say?
Rule 27.106(1) provides that a judicial officer or adjudicative assistant must not use an artificial intelligence tool for the performance of a judicial officer's adjudicative duties with any judicial case information unless the tool is currently approved by the committee to meet the confidentiality, security, and reliability requirements for that use. The judicial branch artificial intelligence innovation and governance committee is the approving body, and the state court administrator posts the approved-tool list publicly.
When does chapter 27 take effect?
The Supreme Court of Iowa adopted chapter 27 by order on July 21, 2026, signed by Chief Justice Susan Christensen. The chapter, rules 27.101 through 27.107, is operative on January 1, 2027.
Last verified: July 28, 2026