Judge Caught Using AI to Read Court Decisions

Recent internal records reveal that Immigration Judge John P. Burns utilizes artificial intelligence to deliver courtroom rulings at the New York Broadway Immigration Court.

Sources from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) disclosed that Burns employs AI to generate audio recordings of his decisions. It remains unclear whether he uses AI solely for vocal delivery or to help draft the written rulings. An anonymous Justice Department official expressed concern, noting that this practice is unusual but could be part of a broader trend.

This incident follows EOIR’s internal policy memo, issued in August, which states that AI use in immigration courts is not explicitly forbidden but leaves it to individual judges to decide if they disclose when AI tools are used. The memo mentions no restrictions on voice synthesis or AI-assisted decision-making, implying judges have discretion in adoption. Burns appears to be among the first to leverage this flexibility, with courtroom staff confirming the use of voice software earlier this year.

Burns is known for his tough stance on immigration cases. Data shows he approved only 2 percent of asylum claims between 2019 and 2025, significantly below the national average of nearly 58 percent. Advocates criticize his low approval rate and opaque AI use, arguing it undermines trust in the justice process. Many question whether decisions are truly based on Judge Burns’ reasoning rather than artificial voice synthesis, raising concerns about fairness.

Burns’s appointment was also politically charged. Despite being rated “not recommended” during initial evaluation, EOIR leadership overruled this ranking and appointed him in late 2020, during the Trump administration. His background included government enforcement roles, such as Assistant Chief Counsel for ICE in New York, fitting the administration’s pattern of appointing judges with prosecutorial backgrounds. Internal EOIR communications suggest a broader effort to reshape the immigration judiciary through strategic replacements.

In summary, Burns’s use of AI in courtroom decisions raises legal and ethical questions about transparency and fairness. His appointment, combined with controversial decision rates, highlights ongoing shifts within the immigration court system driven by political and technological influences.

FAQs

Q: Is the use of AI in immigration courts common?
A: Currently, AI use is not widespread and is left to individual judges’ discretion, with many practicing secrecy about its application.

Q: Does AI assist in drafting decisions or just in delivering audio recordings?
A: It’s unclear whether AI is used solely for vocal delivery or also to aid in drafting decisions, but Burns appears to be using AI for audio recordings.

Q: Why is Burns’s low approval rate significant?
A: It emphasizes his restrictive rulings, raising concerns about fairness, especially when combined with opaque AI-assisted decision-making.

Q: How did Burns get appointed as a judge?
A: Despite doubtful ratings, political influence and administrative decisions led to his appointment, reflecting broader efforts to influence the immigration judiciary.

Q: Are there ethical concerns with using AI in court decisions?
A: Yes, particularly regarding transparency, accountability, and ensuring decisions reflect judges’ own reasoning rather than automated systems.