SCOTUS FOCUS

“We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” Roberts sternly declared. Or did he? — ChatGPT and the Supreme Court, two years later

Just over two years ago, following the launch of ChatGPT, SCOTUSblog decided to test how accurate the much-hyped AI really was — at least when it came to Supreme Court-related questions. The conclusion? Its performance was “uninspiring”: precise, accurate, and at times surprisingly human-like text appeared alongside errors and outright fabricated facts. Of the 50 questions posed, the AI answered only 21 correctly.

Now, more than two years later, as ever more advanced models continue to emerge, I’ve revisited the issue to see if anything has changed.

Successes secured, lessons learned

ChatGPT has not lost its knowledge. It still got right that the Supreme Court originally had only six seats (Question #32) and explained accurately what a “relisted” petition is (Question #43). Many of its responses have become more nuanced, incorporating crucial details that were missing in 2023. For example, when asked about the counter-majoritarian difficulty, the AI easily identified Professor Alexander Bickel as the scholar who coined the term (Question #33). Similarly, when explaining non-justiciability (Question #31), the concept that there are some cases that courts cannot hear, it now includes mootness and the prohibition on advisory opinions among its examples.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, March 21

The court released two opinions this morning. In Delligatti v. United States, the court ruled against a former associate of the Genovese crime family that an attempted murder-for-hire was a violent crime eligible for a firearms sentencing enhancement under federal law. And in Thompson v. United States, the court ruled for a former Chicago alderman that a federal law that makes it a crime to make false statements to the FDIC does not criminalize statements that are misleading but true.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• Justices Take Broad View of ‘Crime of Violence’ in Mob Case (Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law)
• Florida man is executed for the killings of an 8-year-old girl and her grandmother (Curt Anderson, The Associated Press)
• Yearslong redistricting saga puts Voting Rights Act in Supreme Court’s crosshairs (Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service) 
• Neil Gorsuch Breaks With Supreme Court in Rare Opinion (Jenna Sundel, Newsweek) 
• The Small, Simple Question That Changed Supreme Court History (Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times) 

SCOTUS NEWS

Former clerk tapped for fall double jeopardy argument

The Supreme Court has tapped a former clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor to defend a lower court ruling in next term’s Barrett v. United States, a New York man’s challenge to his robbery convictions and sentences under two federal laws. The federal government, which prevailed in the lower court last May, has declined to defend that ruling at the Supreme Court.

The justices appointed Charles L. McCloud to brief and argue the case. Dwayne Barrett, who was involved in a series of armed robberies, argues that the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause prohibits him from receiving two separate sentences – one for violating a federal law that makes it a crime to use a gun during a crime of violence and a second one for murder or manslaughter during a robbery.

When a federal appeals court rejected his argument, Barrett came to the Supreme Court, which agreed on March 3 to take up his case.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, March 20

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• White House calls on Supreme Court to rein in judges blocking Trump’s agenda (Steve Holland & Nandita Bose, Reuters)
• Trump administration unfazed by court losses and sets sights on Supreme Court (Paula Reid and Casey Gannon, CNN)
• Judges Fear for Their Safety Amid a Wave of Threats (Mattathias Schwartz & Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times)
• Supreme Court seems in no hurry to rule on Trump plea to rein in judges over birthright citizenship (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)
• Trump Turns Fight Over Deportation Flights Into a Constitutional Showdown (Jan Wolfe, The Wall Street Journal)

Coming up: On Friday, March 21, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, March 19

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Top US Supreme Court justice rebukes Trump’s call to impeach judge (Kayla Epstein, BBC News)
• Louisiana puts man to death in state’s first nitrogen gas execution (Sara Cline, The Associated Press)
• Trump Fires Two Democratic FTC Commissioners (Dana Mattioli & Dave Michaels, The Wall Street Journal)
• The Judiciary’s Role (German Lopez, The New York Times)
• Due Process and the Rule of Law (Steve Vladeck, One First)

Coming up: On Friday, March 21, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.