Today's briefing covers two Federal Register notices in which justice-system funders name artificial intelligence in the terms that govern their grants. The State Justice Institute lists the examination of AI in court processes, alongside court cybersecurity, among its FY 2027 priority investment areas, and the Legal Services Corporation cites AI in intake and case management as one reason for its first revision of Performance Area One since 2007.
The State Justice Institute's grant guideline for fiscal year 2027 sets the administrative, programmatic and financial requirements for its grants to state and local courts, national nonprofit organizations that serve state judiciaries, and other eligible applicants; SJI is barred from funding federal, tribal and international courts. Under the Transforming Courts priority investment area, the technology entry supports projects that institutionalize electronic filing and payment, online dispute resolution, remote work and virtual proceedings, and adds that SJI supports the examination of the potential integration of artificial intelligence into court processes, including identification of positive outcomes and potential limitations of AI.
A separate cybersecurity entry says courts must be prepared for attacks such as denial-of-service and ransomware against case-management systems, websites and other critical information technology, and that SJI supports projects that help courts prepare for and respond to them and share lessons learned. Applications go through the SJI Grants Management System and are considered quarterly, with due dates of November 1, February 1, May 1 and August 1. Project grants allow state courts and national nonprofits to request up to $300,000 over 36 months and local courts up to $200,000 over 24 months, with a cash match at least equal to the award.
The guideline frames AI as something courts should evaluate, including its limitations, rather than simply deploy, and it sits next to an explicit priority on ransomware and denial-of-service readiness for case-management systems. Court administrators and their technology partners considering AI pilots can align proposals with both entries and with the factors SJI asks every project to integrate, including evidence-based, data-driven decision making, ease of replication and sustainability. The first quarterly due date, November 1, falls 11 days after publication, and the dollar-for-dollar cash match on project grants needs to be planned before applying.
The Legal Services Corporation has revised Performance Area One of its Performance Criteria, the indicators it uses to evaluate how grant recipients identify the most pressing and emerging legal needs in their service areas and decide how to deliver services. The revision adds a new criterion on strategic planning and rewrites the criteria on needs assessment, implementation of strategies and self-examination of effectiveness, reorganized around a needs assessment, strategic planning, implementation and evaluation cycle. It takes effect on January 1, 2027.
LSC gives three reasons: the evolution of nonprofit management toward data-driven accountability, revenue diversification and stronger board governance; the American Bar Association's 2021 revisions to its Standards for the Provision of Civil Legal Aid; and technology. On the last point it cites case management systems that collect and aggregate more data, more business conducted by videoconference, legal information delivered through mobile apps, and the nascence of artificial intelligence in intake and case management, and it says the revisions ask evaluators to consider whether, and to what extent, legal aid organizations are using these strategies in their planning and operations. The proposed revisions, published for comment in early October 2025, drew eleven unique comments warning that the criteria were becoming more prescriptive; in response LSC revised the introductions and indicators and says it will consider each program's capacity and provide training and forums.
AI is named as context rather than as a requirement, but it now sits inside the framework evaluators use to assess LSC grantees' planning and operations. Legal aid organizations piloting AI-assisted intake or case management should be ready to explain how those tools feed their needs assessments and strategic plans, and vendors serving them should expect questions framed in those terms. LSC's response to commenters also signals that the criteria remain an evaluation framework rather than an enforcement tool, which leaves room for programs to adopt such tools at their own pace.
