AI 服務暫時不可用，以下為來源正文，待恢復後補全翻譯。
From Wednesday's decision in Phillips v. Parlade, by Judge Gloria Navarro (D. Nev.), where a litigant sued a state court judge in his case: Plaintiff … argu[es] that judicial immunity does not apply in this matter because 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." Plaintiff further argues that because Defendant delegated 100% of her decision-making duties, the rulings were in clear absence of all jurisdiction. Judges enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability, even if their action was in error, done maliciously, or in excess of their authority. Judicial immunity applies unless the challenged conduct is accompanied by a clear absence of all jurisdiction or where the challenged conduct is not judicial in nature. 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. 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. Naturally, I can't speak to whether the allegations against the state judge are correct. But the federal decision in this case is that, as a matter of law, even if the allegations are correct and she had indeed relied entirely on AI in making her decision, she can't be sued for that in federal court. Such objections to a state judge's actions can of course be raised on appeal to a state appellate court (or through various appeal-like remedies, such as petitions for a writ of mandamus or the like). And they can be raised in state court disciplinary proceedings. But, according to this case, they can't be raised in a federal district court lawsuit against the state court judge.