Federal Judge Uses ChatGPT To Define Racial Slur

A Judge Turns to Unconventional Sources

In a move that highlights the growing intersection of technology and law, a Trump-appointed federal judge turned to some unusual tools for a court ruling: ChatGPT and Urban Dictionary. Judge Chad Readler of the Court of Appeals’ Sixth Circuit consulted the AI chatbot to help decipher the modern meaning and potential racial hostility of the phrase “monkey a--.”

The Heart of the Discrimination Case

The inquiry was part of a significant workplace discrimination lawsuit. Plaintiffs Thomas Michael Smith and Monaleto Sneed alleged that their supervisors at PAM Transport Inc. created a hostile environment by discriminating against them for being Black, using derogatory terms such as “monkey” and “monkey a--.”

Initially, a Tennessee District Judge, also a Trump appointee, had ruled in favor of the trucking company in a 2024 decision. However, the case was appealed, and a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling in a recent decision.

ChatGPT Enters the Legal Record

In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Readler detailed his thought process, noting the “difficult issues” the court faced. He wrote, “Does the term ‘monkey a--,’ a phrase understandably not included in traditional dictionaries, have the same racial connotation as the term ‘monkey?’”

To explore this, he cited definitions from both Urban Dictionary and ChatGPT. The judge included the AI's response to his query, “What does monkey a-- mean?” in his opinion.

The chatbot concluded its lengthy analysis by stating the phrase was “Racial? Not inherently - but can be, depending on how and to whom it’s said.”

Judicial Caution on AI in the Courtroom

While Judge Readler used the AI for supplemental context, the majority opinion, authored by Obama-appointee Judge Jane Stranch, offered a more direct conclusion. It stated, “there is no meaningful difference between the terms ‘monkey’ and ‘monkey a--’ when used by a supervisor against an African American employee, as alleged here.”

Interestingly, Judge Stranch added a footnote specifically addressing her colleague's use of the AI. She cautioned that while “ChatGPT functions as a consolidator of information,” it “does not independently verify the accuracy of any material or its unknown sources.” This serves as a critical reminder of the current limitations and potential pitfalls of relying on artificial intelligence in official legal proceedings.