Neal Katyal's TED Talk claim that Harvey AI predicted SCOTUS questions nearly verbatim draws bar criticism over credit, ethics, and AI-prep disclosure norms.
Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal disclosed during a TED Talk that he used a customized Harvey AI system to prepare for oral argument before the Supreme Court in a landmark tariff case, triggering immediate pushback from legal scholars, co-counsel, and bar commentators over attribution, accuracy, and professional responsibility [1]. The disclosure, made in early May 2026, centered on Katyal's claim that the AI, trained on 25 years of individual justices' questions and written opinions, predicted the questions he would face at argument "almost word for word" [1].
The underlying case is *Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump*, in which the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in February 2026 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs [1]. Katyal argued on behalf of challengers to the tariff regime. The case drew a coalition of dozens of elite law firms and a substantial amicus brief presence, with Milbank LLP and the Liberty Justice Center among the organizations that contributed to the litigation effort [2]. Co-counsel Colleen Roh Sinzdak was among those identified in reporting on the blowback [1].
The criticism arrived quickly and cut in two directions. On the substantive side, practitioners and academics argued that crediting a single attorney's AI preparation tool for the outcome understated, and arguably distorted, the collective work of a multi-firm coalition and extensive amicus support [1] [2]. On the professional-responsibility side, commentators raised questions about whether the voluntary public disclosure of AI use in court preparation carries any ethics implications, including obligations to inform clients or tribunals, or whether it implicates competence standards under professional conduct rules [2]. No formal disciplinary complaint has been reported, but bar observers noted that the episode surfaces issues that existing rules have not squarely addressed [2].
The debate arrives as courts and bar associations across the country are still drafting, revising, or piloting AI-use disclosure requirements for filed documents and oral proceedings. The Katyal episode extends that conversation into preparation and strategy, areas that bar regulators have largely left untouched [2]. Expect the ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and individual state bars to face renewed pressure to issue formal guidance on AI-assisted oral-argument preparation, and expect the episode to surface in continuing-legal-education programming and law school professional-responsibility curricula in the months ahead [2].