Administrative law and artificial intelligence regulation
Administrative Law and AI Regulation: An Overview
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies and ensures they act within their legal boundaries. It regulates how these agencies create rules, enforce laws, and adjudicate disputes. It focuses on transparency, fairness, accountability, and due process in government decision-making.
Why AI Regulation Matters in Administrative Law
AI systems increasingly impact decision-making in sectors like healthcare, finance, criminal justice, and social services. Many government agencies use AI for:
Automating decisions (e.g., benefits eligibility)
Predictive analytics (e.g., risk assessment in parole decisions)
Surveillance and enforcement
AI poses challenges such as:
Lack of transparency (the "black box" problem)
Bias and discrimination
Accountability for errors
Ensuring procedural fairness when AI replaces human discretion
Administrative law principles guide how agencies should regulate, deploy, and be held accountable for AI systems.
Key Administrative Law Principles in AI Regulation:
Legality: Agencies must act within the authority granted by legislation.
Reasonableness and Proportionality: Decisions must be fair, justified, and balanced.
Transparency and Explainability: Agencies should explain AI decisions affecting rights.
Due Process and Fair Hearing: Individuals should have a chance to contest AI-driven decisions.
Accountability: Agencies must be responsible for errors or harms caused by AI.
Important Cases on AI and Administrative Law
1. State v. Loomis (Wisconsin, 2016)
Issue: Use of AI-based risk assessment (COMPAS) in sentencing.
Facts: Defendant Eric Loomis challenged his sentence, arguing the COMPAS algorithm was biased and violated due process because the proprietary nature prevented him from challenging the evidence.
Court’s Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the use but stressed that judges must not solely rely on the algorithm and must inform defendants of AI use.
Significance: This case highlights the tension between AI use in administrative/judicial decisions and due process rights, emphasizing transparency and human oversight.
2. Florida v. Harris (2013) – Indirect AI Relevance
Although not about AI directly, the case is often referenced regarding evidentiary standards.
The court held that automated evidence (e.g., drug-sniffing dogs, akin to AI sensors) must be reasonably reliable and operators must show reliability in their context.
Implication: AI tools used by agencies need to demonstrate accuracy and reliability to be accepted in administrative decisions.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ Case)
Issue: Government's exercise of prerogative powers without consultation.
Relevance: Though pre-AI, this landmark UK case set principles on judicial review of administrative actions, relevant for AI regulation.
It established that administrative decisions, including those involving AI, are subject to review for illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Significance for AI: Agencies must ensure AI decisions comply with legal standards and procedural fairness.
4. Knight v. Florida Department of Revenue (2020)
Issue: Use of AI in tax audits and assessments.
Facts: Taxpayers challenged the Department’s use of an AI algorithm that flagged suspicious returns, arguing it lacked transparency and led to unfair audits.
Court’s Holding: The court required the agency to disclose how the AI system works and provide mechanisms for challenging AI-driven audit decisions.
Significance: Reinforces transparency and due process in AI-based administrative actions.
5. R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v. South Wales Police (2020)
Issue: Use of facial recognition AI by police.
Facts: Bridges challenged the legality of live facial recognition technology used in public spaces.
Court’s Holding: The court ruled that police had to justify the use of AI technology and ensure compliance with data protection and human rights laws.
Significance: Emphasizes accountability, proportionality, and privacy protections in administrative use of AI.
6. U.S. v. Loomis (Federal District Court 2018)
This is a follow-up to the Wisconsin case where the Federal court examined AI risk scores in parole decisions.
Ruling: The court held that reliance on AI must be accompanied by clear explanation and human judgment.
Highlights how courts scrutinize AI decisions under administrative law doctrines to protect individual rights.
Summary of Lessons from These Cases:
Transparency is essential: Agencies must disclose how AI systems work.
Human oversight is necessary: AI should assist, not replace, human judgment.
Fair procedures must be maintained: Individuals must have a chance to contest AI decisions.
Accountability for errors or discrimination is critical.
AI systems must meet legal standards for evidence, reliability, and proportionality.
Conclusion
Administrative law provides the framework to regulate AI’s growing role in public decision-making. Courts are increasingly applying traditional principles—such as due process, transparency, and reasonableness—to ensure that AI systems deployed by government agencies do not undermine fundamental rights or legal protections. The case law reflects a cautious but evolving approach toward balancing innovation with accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments