Amy Coney Barrett may serve on the Supreme Court of the United States for fifty years. In that time, she will rule on issues that seem like science fiction today. The Senators on the Judiciary Committee centered their examination on immediate, albeit weighty matters like abortion and health care. I am disappointed that the queries did not look ahead to the profound ethical, commercial, and judicial challenges created by our use of exponentially growing technologies.
Why the U.S. Supreme Court Matters
Justices on the Supreme Court of The United States are robust checks and balances for politicians, local governments, and influential organizations and individuals. For example, the Supreme Court can tell a President that s/he may not fire a government executive for political reasons, and s/he must relent. Justices serve for life, and the Court’s decisions are final. Amy Coney Barrett has a long life ahead, and she will make decisions on situations that are unimaginable even today.
Learning Whether Judge Barrett Has An Exponential Mindset
I am intensely curious about how much Judge Barrett has considered the tremendous changes the future may bring. I think it’s essential to understand how she might imagine possibilities and apply the law to not just novel but potentially bizarre situations. Here are some questions that I would ask.
Genetic Editing
Question: Suppose that the genetic editing of human embryos continues in clandestine labs. Thirty years from now, rock-solid data in many countries show that it is safe and reliable. A clinic wants to offer the service. Congress has passed a law banning the process in the United States. A married couple claims that the law impinges on their reproductive rights and is therefore unconstitutional. What factors would you take into consideration when ruling on this situation?
Question: A corporate research team determines that a specific combination of edits to a human embryo is guaranteed to make the resulting human healthier, happier, stronger, and smarter. The company files for a United States patent for that gene combination. Again, what factors would you consider in ruling on the company’s ability to gain a U.S. patent for this “designer baby” gene combination?
AI: Digital Twins And Their Data
Question: A new pathogen has appeared in the country. It causes acute heart inflammation, is highly contagious, and has an 80% mortality rate for a specific ethnic group. Using a Deep Learning model, scientists prove that they can create a “digital twin” of that group’s heart cells. By using the digital twin, researchers can test millions of drug molecules in minutes. They can develop a cure in days. However, they first need the genetic map of 50% of the group’s members. Despite significant efforts to persuade voluntary donation, only 10% willingly provide DNA samples. Fearing the pathogen’s mutation and spread to the entire population, the President issues an Executive Order compelling the genetic testing. The group claims invasion of privacy and asks the Supreme Court to block the order. What would you consider in ruling on their request?
Brain-Computer Interface: Reading Thoughts
A final question: What factors would you consider in this situation? Decades from now, brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink advance. Systems read thoughts with great accuracy. It becomes trendy for recreational use. A woman agrees to play a mind-reading game during a dinner party. Guests are shocked when the device reveals in detail how the woman murdered her husband. There is no other evidence. She is arrested and refuses to confess. She is convicted by a jury, in part because she breaks down on the witness stand with the appearance of guilt. Her appeal reaches the Supreme Court. The question for the Court is whether information accidentally found when reading someone’s thoughts, with their permission and proven “beyond a doubt” accuracy, can be admissible evidence.
Future Scenarios For The Supreme Court Are Boundless
The U.S. Supreme Court is not unique in facing a future of rapidly-changing and unpredictable events. Mental flexibility, imagination, and a mindset of embracing possibilities will help any individual or organization to wrestle with frequent novel situations. I sincerely hope that that exponential mindset complements judge Barrett’s tremendous intelligence.
What future scenarios would you put to a person who is up for a life-appointment to a pivotal government post?