Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

LLM-Assisted Legal Propositions Identification from Party Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Дата публикации: 17-09-2026 19:21:29



Merits briefs are central to U.S. litigation, serving as the primary means for parties to present arguments and persuade judges. Legal propositions in these merits briefs are the atomic units of arguments, whose relationships evolve throughout litigation and inform court decisions and precedent. Large language models (LLMs) have been applied to legal document review, but there is limited evidence on their ability to identify legal propositions in merits briefs. Given the labor-intensive nature of the task, we evaluate a human-AI collaborative approach to identifying legal propositions in the U.S. Supreme Court merits briefs, in which legal annotators review and revise LLM-generated propositions rather than identify them from scratch. We focus on cases involving First Amendment issues. We evaluate our approach across three LLMs by measuring recall, editing burden, and time efficiency relative to manual identification. GPT-4.1 mini achieves the highest recall, recognizing 65.76% of expert-identified legal propositions, though performance varies across merits briefs, indicating limited stability and a real need for human intervention. Nevertheless, acceptance rates for LLM-generated propositions are consistently high across annotators and models, ranging from 75.00% to 86.67%, suggesting that the approach can reduce the burden of identifying legal propositions from scratch. Our approach combines LLM-based identification of legal propositions with human oversight to ensure output quality while reducing annotation effort. Future work will focus on improving recall and assessing the generalizability of our approach.



Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

LLM-Assisted Legal Propositions Identification from Party Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
Document Type

Chapter of Book

Publication Date

2026

Keywords

U.S. Supreme Court merits briefs, human-AI collaboration, argument mining, legal propositions, large language models

Abstract

Merits briefs are central to U.S. litigation, serving as the primary means for parties to present arguments and persuade judges. Legal propositions in these merits briefs are the atomic units of arguments, whose relationships evolve throughout litigation and inform court decisions and precedent. Large language models (LLMs) have been applied to legal document review, but there is limited evidence on their ability to identify legal propositions in merits briefs. Given the labor-intensive nature of the task, we evaluate a human-AI collaborative approach to identifying legal propositions in the U.S. Supreme Court merits briefs, in which legal annotators review and revise LLM-generated propositions rather than identify them from scratch. We focus on cases involving First Amendment issues. We evaluate our approach across three LLMs by measuring recall, editing burden, and time efficiency relative to manual identification. GPT-4.1 mini achieves the highest recall, recognizing 65.76% of expert-identified legal propositions, though performance varies across merits briefs, indicating limited stability and a real need for human intervention. Nevertheless, acceptance rates for LLM-generated propositions are consistently high across annotators and models, ranging from 75.00% to 86.67%, suggesting that the approach can reduce the burden of identifying legal propositions from scratch. Our approach combines LLM-based identification of legal propositions with human oversight to ensure output quality while reducing annotation effort. Future work will focus on improving recall and assessing the generalizability of our approach.

Citation

Heng Zheng & Alex Zhang, LLM-Assisted Legal Propositions Identification from Party Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court Briefs, in Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2026 209-220 (Katie Atkinson et al. eds., 2026)

Library of Congress Subject Headings

Legal briefs, Law--Methodology, Artificial intelligence, Human-computer interaction, Forensic orations, United States. Supreme Court

DOWNLOADS

Since September 17, 2026

COinS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA260813
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/4689

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1Prosecutorial Guidance and Non-Prosecution Policies: A Pragmatic Path Forward for AI in Legal Services017.1418-09-2026
2Advice for Incorporating AI Tools Into Your Legal Practice03.9721-07-2026
3Human Psychology and Robot Evidence in the Courtroom, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Agency Proceedings06.4609-09-2026
4United States: Early Court Approval for AI Document Review01010-08-2026
5Law Schools Should Teach How to Integrate AI Tools Into Practice04.927-07-2026
6Heppner v. Claude: Landmark Privilege Waiver by AI Ruling—Key Takeaways for Lawyers and Clients05.8525-02-2026
7United States: Legal Accountability for AI Agents01001-07-2026
8AI Learning or AI Copying - Ninth Circuit Weighs In06.430-09-2026
9What 2 Profs Noticed As Transactional Law Students Used AI07.221-07-2026
10Reflection Pattern: AI Agents Self-Correct in Production014.3511-09-2026

Классификация: Наука. Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 6.83. Источник: scholarship.law.duke.edu.