When a court issues a decision, the clock starts ticking. In the hours that follow, attorneys dissect the holdings, journalists race to publish interpretations, and advocacy groups seek to translate the legalese into public messaging. Yet the underlying task, understanding what the court actually said, remains as essential as ever. Artificial intelligence has recently stepped into this arena, not as a novelty but as a continuation of something long underway.
For decades, legal practitioners have leaned on tools that helped them absorb and communicate judicial decisions more efficiently. Court reporting services, annotated summaries, and later, keyword-searchable databases like Westlaw and LexisNexis all served to bridge the gap between the courtroom and the public square. The principle was simple: if law shapes life, then it ought to be understood by more than just those trained to decipher it.
What AI offers now is not a new goal but a faster route. Within minutes of an opinion’s release, AI can summarize its key points, draw out historical parallels, and even compare reasoning across jurisdictions. These tasks, while previously possible, often consumed days of research. The speed is not about replacing analysis but accelerating access. It allows legal scholars and lay readers alike to engage with the content while the conversation is still fresh.
Critics may raise concerns about accuracy, and rightly so. But accuracy has always been a human obligation. Just as one would not quote a legal digest without checking the original source, responsible use of AI still demands scrutiny. The danger is not the tool; it is how it is used. An AI summary should be the beginning of understanding, not the end of inquiry.
In reality, the legal profession has always depended on intermediaries to interpret and explain. Whether through newspaper columnists in the 1930s or blog commentators in the 2000s, the effort to make case law accessible has evolved with the tools of the time. What we are seeing today is not a revolution. It is an acceleration of that same impulse. AI does not make the Constitution any clearer on its own, but it might help more people read it. And in a democracy that often stumbles over its own legal footing, that might be a step worth taking.