WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 5155

Human oversight in the creation of official verbatim court records required.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Sandra Feist

Minnesota requires human oversight by a qualified court reporter for AI-generated official verbatim court records, with certification and documentation.

Introduction and first reading, referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
#courts #telecommunicationsandinformationtechnology
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 5155

HF 5155 (2025-2026) – Minnesota: Human oversight in the creation of official verbatim court records

Purpose and intent

  • Establish requirements for human oversight in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to create official verbatim court records (transcripts or recordings) in Minnesota courts.
  • Ensure AI-generated outputs used for official records are monitored, verified, and certified by qualified court reporters to maintain accuracy, integrity, and alignment with statutes and court rules.
  • Create policies governing oversight and establish a clear framework for resolving discrepancies between AI outputs and human-verified records.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions (Section 484.721):

    • AI-based tool: Any AI system used to generate, analyze, or transcribe audio, video, or text for the purpose of creating an official verbatim court record.
    • Court: Includes the state’s supreme court, and all district or appellate courts required to maintain an official verbatim record.
    • Official verbatim court record: The mandated transcript or recording of court proceedings per Minnesota statutes and rules.
    • Qualified court reporter: A stenographer meeting the supreme court’s minimum qualifications.

  • Human oversight requirement (Subd. 2):

    • AI-generated recommendations, predictions, or outputs cannot be the sole basis for creating an official verbatim record.
    • AI use must involve human oversight by a qualified court reporter, including: 1) Real-time monitoring or post-process review of AI output to ensure accuracy and completeness. 2) Verification that the output accurately reflects spoken words, context, and intent verbatim. 3) Certification by the qualified court reporter that the record complies with applicable statutes, rules, and accuracy standards.
    • The Minnesota Supreme Court must establish policies governing this oversight before AI tools are used for official records.

  • Certification and documentation (Subd. 3):

    • Official AI-assisted records must include a certification by the court reporter attesting to accuracy, oversight, and the specific AI tool used (type and name).
    • The court must maintain documentation of the oversight process, including the identity of oversight personnel and methods used to verify AI output, in line with the court’s record retention policies.

  • Exceptions (Subd. 4):

    • The requirement does not apply to unofficial recordings or transcripts created for purposes other than the official record, provided they are clearly labeled as unofficial and are not submitted as part of the official record.

  • Effective date:

    • The provisions take effect January 1, 2027 and apply to official verbatim court records created on or after that date.

Who would be affected

  • Courts in Minnesota (supreme, district, and appellate) that produce official verbatim records.
  • Certified/qualified court reporters who would oversee AI-generated outputs and provide certification.
  • Stakeholders relying on official court records (attorneys, researchers, courts, and the public) who seek assurance of recorded accuracy.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Enactment timeline: Effective January 1, 2027.
  • Applies to official verbatim court records created on or after the effective date.
  • Requires development of court policies on human oversight prior to use of AI for official records by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
  • Creates documentation and certification requirements that must accompany AI-assisted official records.

Potential impact and considerations

  • Enhances accountability and accuracy for AI-assisted court records.
  • Introduces standardized oversight, potentially increasing time and resource needs for transcripts/records.
  • Provides a legally trackable framework (certifications and documentation) to address discrepancies between AI outputs and human-verified records.
  • Maintains primacy of human-verified records in case of any discrepancy, ensuring the official record remains accurate.

Sponsor: Co-sponsor Sandra Feist

If you’d like, I can add a concise pros/cons section or compare this bill to current Minnesota practices.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.