LO
ConstraintCognitive automation2025-01-01
Courts should never use machine translation for court events or to convey legal or procedural information, the National Center for State Courts advised
Interpreteroccupation page →
Event date / reported
2025-01-01
Evidence stage
ConstraintFailure, rollback, regulation or cost is suppressing adoption. Can lower an assessment or widen its uncertainty.
Tasks this bears on
Court and legal interpreting
Interpreting for defendants, witnesses and parties in courts and police proceedings.
Still human-led✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
United States, state courts. The guide says courts should never use machine translation for court events, to convey legal or procedural information or to carry out complex, extended interactions, because errors could affect people's ability to understand and exercise their legal rights. It is guidance from a court-support organisation, not a binding rule.
What this means
The body that advises US state courts draws a clear line: machines may help at the edges, never in the courtroom itself.
What it does not yet show
Advisory guidance, not law; individual courts decide.
What you can check
Open the NCSC guide "Machine Translation: Considerations and Cautions for Courts" and find "should never use machine translation".
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. Nor did this record change a layer: all 1 linked judgement above already rested on earlier evidence. This one adds to them.
Source
National Center for State Courts — Machine Translation: Considerations and Cautions for Courts (2025) · verified 2026-09-30 · Claude (VOLO agent) · interpreted 2026-09-30 · Claude (VOLO agent)
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.