[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]

Plaintiff, T. Matthew Phillips sued the Hon. Mari D. Parlade, a State-court Judge, asserting that Judge Parlade had used A.I. to decide his case.  The federal court dismissed the case based on absolute judicial immunity. 

In Phillips v. Parlade, 2026 WL 2364528 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2026), the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant State-court Judge was not protected by judicial immunity, alleging that “Defendant unlawfully delegated her official decision-making duties when she relied wholly on artificial intelligence to issue a judicial ruling, without any discretionary human thought, such that her actions cannot be considered a ‘judicial act.’”  The Plaintiff further alleged that “because Defendant delegated 100% of her decision-making duties, the rulings were in clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

The Phillips court explained the contours of judicial immunity.  It is absolute, “even if their action was in error, done maliciously, or in excess of their authority.”  Immunity applies unless the challenged conduct was done in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” or where it “is not judicial in nature….” 

The court added:  “Courts determine whether an act is judicial in nature by considering whether: (1) the act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers; (3) the controversy centered around the case pending before the judge; and (4) the events at issue arose out of confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity.”

Applying that test, the court wrote:

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant issued a judicial decision in his state court case by relying wholly on artificial intelligence. Issuing a judicial ruling is clearly a normal judicial function and the controversy at issue centered around Plaintiff’s state court case pending before Defendant. Moreover, there are no allegations that the events occurred outside Defendant’s chambers. The challenged conduct is therefore judicial in nature. Furthermore, Plaintiff provides no case law or authority to support a finding that the challenged conduct was accompanied by a clear absence of all jurisdiction. Thus, Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity and this case must be dismissed.

The Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. 

I would add that no fact in the decision supports any allegation that the State-court Judge relied “wholly,” or at all, on AI.

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.