PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: INSIGHTS FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE
doi: https://doi.org/10.56461/iup_rlrc.2026.7.ch5
The legitimacy of any legal act is linked to the duty to state reasons, a procedural justice concept that ensures that the exercise of power is never arbitrary. AI systems, highly integrated into state governance, may generate conclusions through statistical patterns that frequently elude human comprehension. The first objective of this research is to analyse the judgment in the case State v. Loomis, specifically focusing on the judicial reasoning in the context of the use of AI systems in the judicial decision-making process. The second objective of this study is to outline the relationship between procedural justice (fairness) and AI systems within the context of the said process. The study employs the doctrinal legal method, with a focus on the analysis of the judicial precedent State v. Loomis alongside the relevant legal literature. The study shows that the judgment in the case State v. Loomis is important for at least two reasons.
Firstly, it concerns the procedural rights of an individual. Secondly, what is of even greater importance is that it may be potentially perceived as aimed at achieving a specific normative goal. Indeed, if AI systems used in the judicial decision-making process are based on selective or biased data, substantive fairness is at risk. AI systems are goal-oriented, and so is substantive fairness. It is possible that significant institutional changes, or even the emergence of new professions, will be necessary to align the above-mentioned goals.
Keywords: procedural justice, AI, procedural fairness, substantive fairness, algorithmic arbitrariness, human rights.
Ali, S. et al. 2026. Procedural justice in the era of algorithms: a critical evaluation of AI governance and digital rights. International Journal of Social Sciences Bulletin, 4(1), pp. 1409–1430.
Bornstein, A. M. 2017. Are algorithms building the new infrastructure of racism? New York: Nautilus. Available at: https://nautil.us/are-algorithms-building-the-new-infrastructure-of-racism-236911 (21. 12. 2025).
Butler, A. 2025. Fingerprints of injustice: the truth behind artificial intelligence and algorithmic-driven evidence. Chapman Law Review, 28(2), pp. 419–448.
Crema, M. & Solum, L. B. 2022. The Original Meaning of “Due Process of Law” in the Fifth Amendment. Virginia Law Review, 108(3), pp. 447–534.
Christian, G. 2024. Legal framework for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in the Canadian criminal justice system. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 21(2), pp. 109–134.
Craig, P. P. 2022. Natural Justice in English Administrative Law: Continuity and Change from the 17th Century. In: Liber amicorum per Marco D’Alberti. Torino: Giappichelli, pp. 1–47.
Fischman-Afori, O. 2025. Due process by design: Enhancing fairness and trust in AI decision-making. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102178
Freeman, K. 2016. Algorithmic injustice: how the Wisconsin Supreme Court failed to protect due process rights in State v. Loomis. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 18(5), pp. 75–106.
Fuller, L. L. 1978. The Forms and Limits of Adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 92(2), pp. 353–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340368
Gentile, G. 2020. Two strings to one bow? Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU competition case law: between procedural and substantive fairness. Market and Competition Law Review, 4(2), pp. 1–29.
Gutman, K. 2019. The essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: the best is yet to come? German Law Journal, 20(6), pp. 884–903. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.67
Hollander-Blumoff, R. 2011. The Psychology of Procedural Justice in the Federal Courts. Hastings Law Journal, 63(1), pp. 127–172.
Kinchin, N. 2024. “Voiceless”: the procedural gap in algorithmic justice. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 32, pp. 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaae024
Kobiałka, M. 2025. AI in the Service of Justice: Opportunities and Threats in the Application of Language Models (LM) and Large Multimodal Models (LMM) in Judicial and Extrajudicial Dispute Resolution with Specific Consideration of Civil Law. Reflections on the Current Dispute Resolution Model. Polish Journal of Political Science, 11(4), pp. 53–68. https://doi.org/10.58183/pjps.04042025
Komoda, J. 2023. Designing AI for courts. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 29(3), pp. 145–192.
Kotowski, A. 2026. Interpretive Judicial Activism and Risk Propensity in Judicial Decision-Making. Warszawa: Difin.
Kriebitz, A. et al. 2025. Cultural Rights and the Rights to Development in the Age of AI: Implications for Global Human Rights Governance. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.15786
Meers, J., Ryan, A. & Tomlinson, J. 2025. Perceptions of procedural fairness and space for personal narrative: an experimental study of form design. Journal of Law and Society, 52(1), pp. 81–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12524
Morency, F. 2022. Do not touch my data: exploring a disclosure-based framework to address data access. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 29(4), pp. 149–208.
Mullan, D. J. 1982. Natural Justice and Fairness – Substantive as well as Procedural Standards for the Review of Administrative Decision-Making? McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill, 27(2), pp. 250–298.
Nelson, J. 2005. Fourteenth Amendment and Eminent Domain. OLR Research Report 2005-R-0421. Hartford: Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research.
Naudts, L. & Vedder, A. 2025. Fairness and Artificial Intelligence. In: Smuha, N. A. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Law Handbooks), pp. 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009367783.006
O’Leary, R. 2025. Ideological testing. North Carolina Law Review, 103(4), pp. 909–970.
Peluso Lopes, G. 2025. Bias in Adjudication and the Promise of AI: Challenges to Procedural Fairness. Law, Technology and Humans, 7(1), pp. 47–67. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3812
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042582
Rocha, C. & Carvalho, J. 2022. Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary: Uses and Threats. In: Ongoing Research, Practitioners, Posters, Workshops, and Projects of the International Conference EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2022. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 1–8.
Strzępek, K. 2024. Human Rights as a factor in the AI alignment. GIS Odyssey Journal, 4(1), pp. 66–77.
Tennant, N. B. 1928. Administrative Finality. Canadian Bar Review, 6(7), pp. 497–514.
Thomas, C. & Pontón-Núñez, A. 2022. Automating judicial discretion: how algorithmic risk assessments in pretrial adjudications violate equal protection rights on the basis of race. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 40(2), pp. 371–407.
Washington, A. L. 2018. How to argue with an algorithm: lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica debate. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 17(1), pp. 131–160.
Wisser, L. 2019. Pandora’s algorithmic black box: the challenges of using algorithmic risk assessments in sentencing. American Criminal Law Review, 56(4), pp. 1811–1832.
Xi, R. 2025. A systems approach to shedding sunlight on A.I. black boxes. Hofstra Law Review, 53(2), pp. 440–489.
Case law
Capel v Child 1832. 2 Crompton & Jervis 558; 149 English Reports 235.
Gregačević v. Croatia 2012. Application no. 58331/09. Reports of Judgments and Decisions. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1985. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985: Compulsory Membership in an Association of Journalists (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), Series A No. 5.
State v. Loomis 2016.371 Wis. 2d 235, 881 N.W.2d 749.
Internet sources
CEPEJ, 2018. European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: coe.int (11. 5. 2026).
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2012. [online]. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326. Available at: eur-lex.europa.eu (26. 3. 2026).
Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators 2007. Resolution 12: In support of sentencing practices that promote public safety and reduce recidivism. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Available at: ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org (25. 3. 2026).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR). [online]. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG (25. 3. 2026).
European Court of Human Rights 2013. Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb). [online]. Council of Europe. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680700aaf (26. 3. 2026).
European Court of Human Rights 2024. Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (criminal limb). [online]. Updated 29 February 2024. Council of Europe. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/1680304c4e (26. 3. 2026).
UNESCO 2025. Guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: www.unesco.org (26. 3. 2026).
U.S. Constitution 1791, amdt. 5. [online]. Constitution Annotated. Available at: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/ (25. 3. 2026).