Jed Stiglitz

Professor of Law

Jed Stiglitz, professor of law, is director of the Center for Law and AI at Cornell University.

Stiglitz says:

“There are good policy arguments for a national framework of AI regulation. AI systems are developed and deployed on a national basis, and state-by-state regulation will be difficult to comply with and slow the pace of innovation. But legally, the White House has an uphill battle. The core of the dormant commerce clause argument they seem to have in mind requires discrimination by one state against other states – laws designed to benefit in-state companies at the expense of out-of-state companies. 

“It is difficult to see discrimination as the purpose behind the state AI regulations in place and being discussed. The state regulations are driven by concerns such as public safety, consumer protection, and bias. The White House is also floating the idea of surprising states that implement AI regulation with new strings on federal funding for broadband deployment. That, too, would be a problematic legal position.”

James Grimmelmann

Tessler Family Professor of Digital and Information Law

James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School, is an expert in content moderation, search engine regulation and online governance.

Grimmelmann says:

“The order won't do anything because it doesn't change the law. In a few places, the constitution and federal law already restrict how states can regulate AI, but tech companies themselves are already suing to block those kinds of laws. For everything else, states are free to pass whatever tech legislation they want. President Trump and his deregulatory allies can rant and rave all they want, but he doesn't have the power to stop it. Only Congress does.”

Frank Pasquale

Professor of Law

Frank Pasquale, a professor of law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School, is an expert in technology policy.

Pasquale says:

“This is a very troubling effort to achieve by executive fiat what the Senate effectively rejected 99-1 earlier this year: massive deregulation of AI by ignoring state rights. U.S. citizens deserve to have the states, as laboratories of democracy, try different AI regulatory strategies. The Bush Administration pursued a similar strategy to deregulate mortgage lending, which fueled the irresponsible lending that led to the great financial crisis of 2008. This deregulation campaign will similarly promote irresponsible AI, with potentially similar consequences.”

Dan Bateyko

Ph.D. student

Dan Bateyko, a doctoral student at Cornell University, studies AI and regulation. 

Bateyko says:

“Much of AI regulation should be handled at the federal level. But if the practical effect of this executive order is to make states afraid to legislate, it’s bad policy. States have lawful means to regulate emerging technologies, and they shouldn’t be deterred from using them by litigation threats or funding restrictions.”