U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro of the District of Nevada ruled that a state judge is protected by judicial immunity from a federal civil lawsuit alleging that she relied entirely on artificial intelligence to issue a ruling. The decision, issued Wednesday in Phillips v. Parlade, dismissed the case against the state-court judge. The plaintiff argued that delegating all decision-making to AI meant the judge had not performed a judicial act and had acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Navarro held that issuing a ruling is a normal judicial function, that the dispute concerned a case pending before the judge, and that no allegations placed the conduct outside the judge’s chambers. The plaintiff also provided no authority showing that alleged total reliance on AI deprived the judge of jurisdiction. Judges have absolute immunity from civil liability for judicial acts even when actions are alleged to be erroneous, malicious, or beyond their authority. The immunity does not apply when conduct is nonjudicial or occurs in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. The ruling does not determine whether the allegation of complete AI reliance is true. Challenges to such conduct may be raised through state appellate procedures, mandamus-like remedies, or state judicial disciplinary proceedings, but not through this federal damages lawsuit.