What is common knowledge? Consider consulting ChatGPT, as the panel in Ross v. United States, a case before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals did. In an opinion issued on February 20, 2025, the majority and dissenting judges publicly disclosed and discussed their use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools—specifically, ChatGPT—to assist in reaching a determination regarding whether the government’s reliance on “common knowledge” was sufficient to fill critical gaps in the government’s case. Following in the footsteps of a federal appellate court, dissenting Associate Judge Deahl used ChatGPT to make a point regarding common knowledge, while the majority responded with its own ChatGPT example. For law firms, clients, and legal practitioners, this opinion signals the judiciary’s growing interest, reliance and use of AI tools in the courtroom.

Background of the Case

In the case, the government charged Niya Ross with one count of cruelty to animals under D.C. Code §§ 22-1001, 22-1002 for leaving her dog, Cinnamon, in a car on a hot day in September 2023. During a bench trial, the trial court found Ross guilty. On appeal, Ross challenged the decision on two grounds. First, she argued that the government failed to demonstrate that her dog suffered from being left in the car, particularly because the government did not introduce expert testimony. Second, Ross argued that the government had not established that she possessed the requisite intent under the criminal statute: general intent with malice.

AI’s Role in the Opinion

What sets this case apart is the transparency regarding the use of AI in the judicial process. Associate Judge Deahl, in his dissent, explicitly stated that he consulted ChatGPT, an AI-powered large language model developed by OpenAI, to explore what he described as “common knowledge” about the effects of leaving a dog in a hot car. He posed hypothetical questions to ChatGPT, such as whether it is harmful to leave a dog in a car with the windows cracked for an hour and twenty minutes at 98 degrees Fahrenheit, and referenced its responses to bolster his reasoning.

The majority, in turn, responded by also engaging with ChatGPT, using it to analyze a hypothetical question related to a prior case, Long v. United States (156 A.3d 698), to contrast the dissent’s approach and underscore the limitations of relying on AI for factual or legal conclusions. Associate Judge Howard, in a concurring opinion, further elaborated on the broader implications of AI in judicial decision-making, drawing on his involvement with the D.C. Courts AI Task Force and addressing ethical, security, and privacy concerns.

This open acknowledgment is a landmark development, as few, if any, prior published judicial opinions in the U.S. have detailed the use of AI tools in judicial opinions with such specificity. The court’s discussion builds on Judge Kevin Newsom’s concurring opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co. (102 F.4th 1208, 11th Cir. 2024), which explored AI’s role in judicial reasoning, but Ross takes the conversation further by integrating AI directly into the opinion-drafting process.

Key Implications for Legal Practitioners and Clients

1. Judicial Transparency and Innovation: The Ross opinion demonstrates a willingness by the judiciary to experiment with AI tools while maintaining transparency about their use. This openness invites legal professionals to consider how AI might enhance efficiency in legal research, drafting, and analysis, but also underscores the need for critical evaluation of AI outputs.
2. Ethical and Practical Concerns: Associate Judge Howard’s concurrence highlights critical issues, including AI bias, data privacy, security risks, and the potential for confidential judicial information to be exposed if AI tools are not carefully managed. For law firms and clients, this raises questions about using AI in legal work while ensuring compliance with ethical obligations and protecting sensitive data.
3. Precedential Value and Caution: While the decision emphasized that the Court used AI as a tool to aid, not replace, judicial reasoning, the dissent’s reliance on ChatGPT’s responses as “color commentary” could spark debate about the reliability of AI as a source of “common knowledge.” Legal practitioners should approach AI-generated insights with skepticism, ensuring they are grounded in evidence and precedent rather than unverified assumptions or hallucinations.
4. Future of AI in Courts: The D.C. Courts’ establishment of an AI Task Force and partnership with the National Conference of State Courts (as noted in Associate Judge Howard’s concurrence) signals a broader trend toward integrating AI into judicial systems. Firms and clients should monitor these developments, as they may influence case strategy, discovery, and courtroom technology.

Conclusion

Ross v. United States is a pioneering decision and the start of what is likely to become a trend of judges (or their clerks) trying out AI tools. As the legal profession navigates the intersection of technology and law, this opinion serves as both an opportunity and a cautionary tale. Law firms and clients should stay informed about the evolving use of AI in courts and the legal profession, assess its potential benefits for legal practice, and address the associated risks to maintain ethical and effective representation.

For assistance with IP or AI questions, please contact Victor Johnson, Sara Gates, or anyone from the Dentons US Intellectual Property & Technology Group.