Justifying Jones
On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Jones v Harris Associates, an appeal from an opinion written by Judge Frank Easterbrook. Easterbrook has a remarkable record when the Supreme Court has reviewed his opinions, and the Jones decision was a rare rebuke. He is twice as likely to be affirmed as other courts of appeals judges—the Court has affirmed him nearly 65 percent of the time, compared with an average of about 35 percent for all courts of appeals judges.
We would like to thank the participants of the How AI Will Change the Law Symposium, cohosted by the Coase-Sandor Institute, the University of Chicago Law Review Online, and Oxford Business Law Blog, for their helpful comments.
We would like to thank the participants of the How AI Will Change the Law Symposium, cohosted by the Coase-Sandor Institute, the University of Chicago Law Review Online, and Oxford Business Law Blog, for their helpful comments.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to alter the interpretation of the duties of care, skill, and diligence. As these duties form the foundation for the BJR and equivalent provisions, the development of AI is also expected to impact the BJR. There is a broadening importance, in an increasingly data-driven business environment, of the requirement to gather sufficient information before making a decision and to use information in a valid manner. Changes are both quantitative (how much information to collect) and qualitative (which types of information to collect). The changes also relate to the methods of decision-making, including the role of measures and statistics over intuition.
This piece has profited enormously from feedback during the University of Chicago Law School’s workshop on “How AI Will Change the Law.” I would like to thank Stephen Bainbridge and Martin Gelter for enlightening me with expert input in the context of the U.S. business judgment rule. Needless to say, all remaining errors are mine.
This Essay explores whether the use of AI to enhance decision-making brings about radical change in legal doctrine or, by contrast, is just another new tool. It focuses on decision-making by board members. This provides an especially relevant example because corporate law has laid out explicit expectations for how board members must go about decision-making.
In the last Supreme Court term, the Court ruled in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Article II of the U.S. Constitution and separation of powers prohibit Congress from shielding the Bureau’s director from termination except for cause. More troubling, Seila Law could open up the financial system to destabilization by paving the path for a full-scale assault on the traditional independence of federal financial regulators and presidential manipulation of the economy.