Neal Katyal draws criticism over TED Talk revealing AI use in SCOTUS tariffs case
Attorney Neal Katyal revealed that he used artificial intelligence to prepare for his argument against President Donald Trump’s tariffs. (Getty Images)
Attorney Neal Katyal revealed last week that he used artificial intelligence to prepare for his argument against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, drawing swift criticism online.
Katyal, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Milbank, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in November. According to Bloomberg Law, he said during a TED Talk released Thursday that he “won” using a “bespoke AI system” trained on 25 years of justices’ questions during oral argument and their eventual opinions.
The system was built by Harvey AI, which “predicted many of the questions the justices asked—sometimes almost word for word,” Katyal said in an X post promoting the TED Talk. Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, also credited mindset, improv and meditation coaches for helping him prepare for the argument.
Social media posts and online columns published by the National Review and the Volokh Conspiracy pushed back against Katyal’s comments about the case, which involved work by several elite law firms and included dozens of amicus briefs, Bloomberg Law reports.
“The notion that it’s Katyal’s preparation with his mindfulness coach and AI that was the key difference maker, I just think people think that was a little preposterous,” Daniel Epps, a professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told Bloomberg Law.
In February, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump that the tariffs Trump imposed are illegal.
Mitu Gulati, a University of Virginia law professor who studies the Supreme Court, noted some benefits to Katyal’s TED Talk, telling Bloomberg Law it showed the potential value of AI prediction tools. He also said it reinforced Katyal’s reputation as a “go-to lawyer” for Supreme Court litigation.
“Everybody reads everything and it’s hard to imagine oral argument changed anybody’s vote,” Gulati told Bloomberg Law. “That said, if you can change a vote, that’s why you pay the guy.”
Neither Katyal nor Milbank responded to Bloomberg Law’s requests for comment.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
