As federal agencies increasingly look to artificial intelligence to support their adjudication workloads and enforcement efforts, the ACUS Office of the Chairman is working with scholars on the forefront of researching agencies’ use of AI and its legal and practical implications.
As part of this initiative, Stanford Law Professors David Freeman Engstrom and Daniel Ho, NYU Law Professor Catherine Sharkey, and California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar are exploring how federal agencies currently incorporate AI into their decision-making processes and use AI to accomplish their goals. ACUS will publish their report later this fall.
Penn Law Professor Cary Coglianese is preparing a separate report for ACUS exploring some of the legal issues agencies may have to contend with as they adopt AI-based technologies, including due process, delegation of power, and equal protection.
Professors Engstrom, Ho, Sharkey, and Coglianese will share their insight in two panels at this year’s American Bar Association Administrative Law Conference next Thursday, November 14.
From 1:15 – 2:45 pm, ACUS Research Director Reeve Bull will moderate a panel discussion on Artificial Intelligence in Regulatory Enforcement. Professors Engstrom and Sharkey will be joined by Marco Enriquez, Applied Mathematician in the SEC’s Office of Research and Data Services, and Todd Rubin, ACUS Attorney Advisor.
The panel will examine a wide array of legal and practical issues associated with the use of AI for regulatory enforcement at agencies such as the SEC, IRS, CMS, CPSC, and EPA.
From 3:00 – 4:30 pm, ACUS Vice Chair and Executive Director Matthew L. Wiener will moderate a panel discussion on Artificial Intelligence in Administrative Adjudication. Professors Ho and Coglianese will be joined by Nancy J. Griswold, Chief Administrative Law Judge at HHS’s Office of Medicate Hearings and Appeals, and Gerald Ray, former Deputy Executive Director of SSA’s Office of Appellate Operations.
The panel will consider how AI can improve the accuracy, consistency, and policy compliance of adjudicative decision-making.