Clio wants to bring artificial intelligence to the judiciary, but a survey spanning all 50 states points to a challenge: state policies differ on whether courts may use the technology.

The finding highlights a fragmented policy environment for judicial AI. Rather than operating under a single nationwide approach, courts face rules that vary from state to state. For a legal technology company seeking to reach the judiciary, those differences could shape where and how its tools are used.

The survey was the subject of an article published by LawNext in November 2026. The available source material does not identify which states permit or restrict judicial AI, describe the survey’s methodology, or specify the technology Clio hopes to provide.

Those details matter because the term “AI” can cover a broad range of tools and potential uses. Without the survey’s findings or the text of individual state policies, it is not possible to say how extensive the differences are or what they mean for particular courts.

What is clear from the source is the contrast between Clio’s ambition to serve the judiciary and the variation in state policies governing whether AI is allowed. Any rollout would encounter a landscape in which the answer may depend on the state.