A Growing Need for Language Access in Wisconsin Courts
Wisconsin lawmakers are considering a bill that could pave the way for the use of artificial intelligence in court interpreting and translation. Introduced in March 2025, the proposal is a response to the state’s persistent interpreter shortage, which has led to repeated delays in hearings and legal proceedings. While other U.S. states have used remote interpreting methods for over a decade, Wisconsin’s new bill goes a step further by potentially allowing AI to supplement or replace human interpreters in both criminal and civil cases.
According to Wisconsin Public Radio, supporters argue that the use of AI tools could improve access to justice for more than 167,000 residents with limited English proficiency (LEP). The bill would amend existing laws to permit courts to use “machine-assisted translation” and interpretation systems during proceedings, alongside or in place of certified interpreters.
Shortage of Qualified Interpreters and Rising Costs
Wisconsin currently lists 135 certified court interpreters, but many are based outside the state. Among the 71 certified Spanish interpreters, fewer than half reside in Wisconsin. Counties bear most of the costs of providing interpreters, while state reimbursements remain partial. The growing demand and limited supply have prompted legislators to explore cost-effective solutions, with AI positioned as a potential alternative.
Controversial Provisions and Ambiguity
Assembly Bill 292, introduced by Representative Dave Maxey and backed by 20 other lawmakers, outlines the legal foundation for using AI-driven tools in courtrooms. However, it has drawn criticism for its vague language and lack of implementation guidelines. Critics note that court interpreting is highly context-sensitive and that any reliance on AI must be carefully regulated to avoid misinterpretation, especially in criminal proceedings.
While Senator Kapenga has described the legislation as a pilot initiative, the bill currently lacks provisions for testing, oversight, or quality assurance. Legal experts warn that the use of untested AI systems in such high-stakes environments could pose risks to due process.
National Implications and Broader Trends
Wisconsin is not alone in exploring AI for courtroom use. The Ohio Supreme Court is considering a similar proposal, though with more restrictions. Their draft rule would allow GenAI tools for translation assistance, but not in substantive legal proceedings. As courts nationwide grapple with interpreter shortages and cost constraints, Wisconsin’s bill reflects a growing interest in integrating AI into the judicial process, raising questions about efficiency, equity, and accuracy.
