​Artificial intelligence is no longer reserved for science fiction or Silicon Valley labs. It is already reshaping how courtrooms function, often in ways the public never sees. While judges still wear robes, hearings still happen in person, and decisions remain human, AI is beginning to influence the machinery behind judicial proceedings in meaningful and sometimes surprising ways.

Courtroom work involves managing enormous amounts of information. Case files can span years, contain sensitive records, and include complex legal arguments. AI-powered tools are now helping courts organize, search, and analyze these materials far more efficiently than traditional methods. Instead of manually sifting through stacks of documents, judges and court staff can use AI-assisted systems to quickly locate relevant filings, note missing information, or identify patterns across cases. This doesn’t replace judgment; it enhances preparation and allows decision-makers to focus on substance rather than logistics.

One of the most significant changes AI brings is speed. Courts across the country struggle with backlogs that delay justice for everyone involved. AI systems can help schedule cases more intelligently and predict how long hearings might take, reducing administrative bottlenecks. By streamlining routine tasks, courts can move cases forward faster without sacrificing accuracy or fairness. For litigants, this can mean fewer continuances, clearer timelines, and less time spent waiting for resolutions that affect their lives.

AI is also changing how legal research is conducted. Traditional legal research can be time-consuming and expensive, which gives an unfair advantage to people with more resources. AI-driven research tools can rapidly scan vast bodies of law, summarize key rulings, and surface relevant precedents. When used responsibly, this technology has the potential to level the playing field by making high-quality legal information more accessible and reducing disparities tied to time and cost.

Another emerging impact lies in language and accessibility. AI-powered transcription and translation tools are improving the accuracy of court records and helping non-English speakers better understand proceedings. Real-time transcription can assist judges, attorneys, and the public by creating clearer records and minimizing misunderstandings. For individuals with disabilities, AI-driven accessibility tools may also help courts better accommodate diverse needs, reinforcing the idea that justice should be understandable and reachable for everyone.

Of course, these changes come with important cautions. Courts operate on trust, transparency, and accountability. AI systems must be carefully evaluated to ensure they do not introduce bias, rely on flawed data, or obscure how decisions are made. Judicial proceedings cannot become black boxes. Judges remain responsible for outcomes, and AI must remain a tool, not a decision-maker. Maintaining clear ethical boundaries is essential to preserving public confidence in the legal system.

Perhaps the most revolutionary shift is philosophical rather than technical. AI allows courts to reimagine how justice is delivered in a modern society. By reducing clerical burdens and improving efficiency, judges and court staff may have more time to focus on what truly matters: listening, evaluating credibility, and applying the law thoughtfully and fairly to all citizens. In that sense, technology can support a more human-centered justice system rather than undermine it.

Artificial intelligence will not replace judges, juries, or the fundamental principles of due process. But it is already reshaping how courts operate behind the scenes. When implemented with care and transparency, AI has the potential to make judicial proceedings more efficient and more responsive to the communities courts serve.

​In 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that people with a restraining order against them do not have a legal right to own a firearm. This ruling, along with potential legislation, has made it more difficult for those who have harmed others in domestic violence incidents from owning, and more importantly using, firearms against their partners or children. As the courts and lawmakers figure out the best approach to dealing with this specific issue, organizations in Illinois are taking a proactive approach to violence and domestic violence in their communities.

United States v. Rahimi (2023) set precedence for preventing those with restraining orders from accessing guns. Zackey Rahimi, a Texas resident, had a restraining order placed against him in 2020, preventing him from engaging in harassing behaviors toward an ex-girlfriend and her child. The restraining order also banned him from owning a gun based on overwhelming evidence that, without intervention, Rahimi might harm his ex-girlfriend and others.

Rahimi took the case to court, and SCOTUS eventually reviewed it. Ultimately, the court drew on precedence from a prior case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which assessed gun cases based on the Constitution's Second Amendment. It also considered prior legislation, the 1968 Gun Control Act and the Violence Against Women Act (1994), in making its decision. The Court ultimately decided that the Bruen case did not apply here, but the above-mentioned legislation did and decided against Rahimi.  

With this decision, Illinois state legislators have a foundation upon which to pass legislation. The latest legislation was Karina's Bill, named for Karina Gonzales, who was murdered by her husband in 2023. An October 2023 article published in The Trace, a gun policy publication, reported that Gonzales filed an order of protection against her husband, which authorities granted. However, before authorities could remove the gun from the home, her husband killed her and Daniela, her 15-year-old daughter, 12 days after Gonzales received the order of protection.

Karina's Law would have enabled law enforcement officers to remove any guns from the home as soon as authorities granted Gonzales the order of protection. As it stands, law enforcement can present orders to those accused of abuse, but they do not have the right to search the property and remove firearms. Karina's Law would have allowed them to do this quickly, but it failed to pass in the state legislature for the third time in January 2024.

While legislators and the courts find a resolution, organizations in the Illinois community are affecting change in gun violence in general. In Chicago, the Government Alliance for Safe Communities (GASC) infused $100 million into addressing community violence and implementing violence interventions, with more than half of the funding going to prevention efforts. The funding will go toward showing communities how to exchange gun violence for supporting healthy communities.

In terms of directly addressing domestic violence-related gun violence, Bloomington's Special Commission for Safe Communities, a group that studies gun violence, received results from a study on gun-related domestic violence. Recommendations include communicating among advocates, law enforcement, and those who experience domestic violence to get an understanding of what it might be like to experience this abuse.

Another critical finding was the importance of understanding the structural barriers a person might face in stopping the abuse. The figures are startling, revealing that in more than 90 percent of domestic violence-related fatalities, the women contacted the police at least six times on average in the preceding three years before being killed. Worse yet, less than half of those contacts culminated in an arrest. Furthermore, the study highlighted that, while legislators agree something must be done, jurisdictional conflicts make it challenging to empower law enforcement to confiscate firearms in these cases.

Also, the nature of domestic violence is such that it sometimes happens for a protracted length of time, which would require more than punitive justice. The commission suggested using the restorative justice model, which would involve mediation between victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. This model has worked in communities in Europe, New Zealand, and indigenous communities dealing with violent crime. With restorative justice, the partner who is victimized has an active voice in dealing with this trauma. At the same time, the aggressor must actively take ownership of their actions.

Domestic violence is a reality in contemporary society, even in one that has evolved considerably since the Equal Rights Amendment of the mid-1970s. According to an October 2024 article in the Chicago Sun-Times, partners who are abusive and can access a gun are five times more likely to kill their partner if she is a woman. Worse yet, on average, 70 women are killed by firearms by their intimate partner every month. Illinois, specifically, experienced a 110 percent spike in domestic violence cases in 2023, with 82 cases ending in firearm fatalities. These figures alone illustrate the need for legislation.

​On April 17, 2024, the National Hellenic Museum (NHM) presented the Trial of Pericles as part of the NHM Trial Series, which reenacts ancient disputes in contemporary settings. Held at the Harris Theater in Chicago, the event focused on Pericles, an Ancient Greek statesman of the 5th century BC who helped establish a flourishing civic democracy and an incipient Athenian empire.

Historian Thucydides documented the career of Pericles. He witnessed many of his achievements and became an unreserved admirer of the statesman. Among his accomplishments, Pericles leveraged a pathway of popular vote to ascend to power and employed legal prosecution as a political tool.

Pericles made numerous controversial decisions during his lengthy career, including supporting a new citizenship law that changed the rules of the Athenian Constitution in 451 BC. It barred citizenship for anyone who did not have two Athenian parents. Previously, any person with an Athenian father could gain citizenship.

While Pericles’ camp claimed the law protected the city-state from foreign influences and preserved democracy, many did not agree. They saw the law as tyrannical and a direct attack on their civil liberties. Some historians opine that Pericles would have undergone trial over the law if he had survived the plague that ravaged Athens in 430 BC.

Bringing together three prosecutors, including two lawyers, one Department of Homeland Security member, and three defending attorneys, the NHM event presented a “what if” trial to answer the age-old question of whether Pericles was a hero or a tyrant. The trial featured testimony by a retired Illinois judge (playing Pericles) and a current Illinois judge, who appeared as prosecution witness Olympia (a non-Athenian mother and wife residing in Athens). The unanimous verdict, handed down by three Illinois current and retired judges, found Pericles guilty.

​The Circuit Court of Cook County oversees marriage and civil union ceremonies, over which court judges preside. Couples must apply for and obtain a marriage license before the wedding in Chicago or Cook County’s suburbs from the Cook County Clerk's office.

Couples can visit one of six locations. They must present their valid IDs and proof of age, fill out the marriage license applications, and pay a fee in person. Divorcees must furnish their finalized divorce date. If they finalized the divorce within the past half year, they must also provide a certified copy of the decree. Since 2014, same-sex couples may also file marriage license applications, and the court will wed them.

Issued while couples wait, marriage licenses become effective the next calendar day and remain valid for 60 days. Court ceremonies for Chicago couples take place in-person and virtually via Zoom, which requires no prior scheduling. They take place each Wednesday at the central court location at 119 W. Randolph St., from 9 am to 12 pm and 2 pm to 4 pm.

​Since 1983, the National Hellenic Museum (NHM) has been striving to “preserve the stories and honor the contributions” of Americans with Greek heritage. It houses extensive archives and artifacts in its 40,000-square-foot headquarters on Halsted Street in Chicago.

On April 17, 2024, the NHM presented The Trial of Pericles at Chicago’s Harris Theater. Over the course of about two hours, this live performance took the form of a courtroom trail of Pericles, an Athenian who fought heroically for democracy in Ancient Greece. He faced severe criticism in 451 BC for introducing a constitutional amendment that revoked Athenian citizenship for anyone without two Athenian parents in a move that many regarded as tyrannical.

The NHM performance placed Pericles on trial before an active jury comprised of 12 prominent legal professionals. Retired judge Paul C. Lillios played the role of Pericles, and current judge Megan Goldish played the role of Olympia. The judges in the trial were Anna Helen Demacopoulos, Anthony C. Kyriakopoulos, and Lindsay C. Jenkins. Remarkably, the jury found Pericles guilty of tyranny.

​Although many people think democracy is a relatively recent concept, this political system actually dates back to the ancient Greeks. A power center of Greece, the city-state of Athens had a succession of democratic leaders, including Pericles, who lived from around 595 to 529 BCE.

Pericles’ life coincided with Greece’s Golden Age, a brief interwar period in which art, philosophy, and architecture flourished. He was a patron of the arts and associated with the era’s luminaries, such as the playwright Sophocles and the philosopher Anaxagoras. A powerful speaker, Pericles also won a military campaign against the Corinthians. He encouraged political participation by authorizing payment for jury duty and civil service.

Complicating his legacy was his prosecution of Cimon, a prominent general. Although it seems Pericles later attempted to rehabilitate Cimon, his treatment of him possibly motivated him to enact the controversial Athenian Citizenship Law of 450. Under this measure, individuals could not become citizens unless both parents were Athenian. Previously, it was only necessary to have an Athenian father.

Pericles’ detractors claimed he catered to prejudices against foreigners and denied civil liberties. The law also may have been an attempt to discredit Cimon, who was born of a non-Athenian mother. However, no historical records reveal Pericles’ actual intentions.

Pericles died in 529 BCE, before he could punished for his actions. Believing his case to have contemporary relevance, the National Hellenic Museum organized a mock trial of Pericles, which found him guilty of promoting tyranny.

​For over a century, the Chicago Lighthouse has fostered innovations in various sectors, including vision care, rehabilitation, education, employment, and technology. In 1906, a group of influential Chicago women launched the organization under the Improvement Association for Blind People. They launched it out of concern for the city's blind community.

In its initial years, the organization concentrated on gathering food and clothing donations from local women's clubs. Its work spanned two world wars and the Depression. The organization organized several skill acquisition programs to empower individuals with vision loss with employable skills like weaving, carpentry, and more. By the 1950s, it added clinical vision care to its list of services with the launch of a low-vision rehabilitation clinic in the Midwest.

During the 1960s and '70s, the organization added more services, including schooling, vocational training, and support for individuals with multiple disabilities. The federal government awarded Lighthouse an exclusive clock manufacturing contract during the late '70s. The organization witnessed rapid growth within the next two decades. By the 21st century, Lighthouse had already established several satellite low-vision clinics across Chicago. The organization currently offers its services to over 67,000 people annually.

​Formed in 1934, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL) supports Jewish lawyers and the legal community of Chicago and throughout Illinois in promoting justice and the legal profession. It also helps foster the improvement of law and the administration of justice. The primary services offered by DSL to the members and the public include judicial evaluation, legal education, community service responsibility (CSR), and employment.

One of the services the DCL offers is judicial evaluation through the Judicial Evaluation Committee. As a member of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, DSL provides an avenue for a fair and impartial review of judicial candidates. The evaluation surveys and offers a report of findings on candidates’ checks, rates the judges, and decides on their retention status.

Second, DSL offers legal education on various legal topics. An accredited Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) provider, DSL provides varying mandatory, minimum, and professional development programs for existing judiciary members and law students.

Also, DSL organizes and oversees the CSR initiative of its members. They deliver food and other items for those in need, especially children and older adults, and monitor legislation concerning human rights and religious freedom. The organization and oversight also include various events over the year, including key events like the Judicial Reception and Annual Meeting. These gatherings offer an opportunity for members to meet and network, update on the society’s activities, listen to keynote speakers, and develop relationships.

Finally, though on a smaller scale than other services, DSL provides employment opportunities, including internships. The networks available through the membership, composed of individuals with various experiences and judicial law niches, offer an avenue for law students to find employment. Also, DSL encourages mentorship for young attorneys and law students by matching mentors and mentees.

​Pro bono publico, which translates into “for the public good,” involves offering professional services freely or at a cheaper rate to people who ordinarily cannot afford them. The legal profession often requires that lawyers take up pro bono cases at certain points in their careers.

For instance, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct recommend that every lawyer should have at least 50 hours of subsidized or completely free pro bono work. The model rules also noted that pro bono cases are instrumental in furthering and improving the legal ecosystem.

In addition to improving the legal system, lawyers also benefit from pro bono cases. One of the major benefits of bro bono cases is that it has helped many lawyers develop their advocacy skills. New lawyers might find the litigation process a little tedious and difficult to adjust to. Taking up pro-bono cases.

The amount of pro bono cases that a law firm takes might positively impact its rankings in publications like the American Lawyer. This is because pro-bono cases are key evidence of social responsibility.

​After a jury or judge finds a defendant guilty, the defendant can appeal the ruling. Defendants can petition the court when they believe their conviction was unjust or their punishment excessively severe.

An appeal differs from a trial. The appeal process serves as a chance for the defendant to address errors that may have transpired during the trial. Therefore, the appeal process occurs after the trial.

Written submissions can resolve some cases. However, most cases undergo an “oral debate” before a court. In a court of appeal, lawyers present their claims on behalf of the appellate. The lawyers will engage in oral arguments before a judge, focusing on the legal principles under contention.

Judgments from the Court of Appeals usually mark a case's end. Sometimes, the parties and the defendants seek redress from the United States Supreme Court or remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. If the Appeal Court deems it appropriate, they can overturn a specific conviction, modify a sentence, or mandate an entirely new trial.