Algorithmic accountability in administrative law
Algorithmic Accountability in Administrative Law
What is Algorithmic Accountability?
Algorithmic accountability refers to the responsibility of government agencies and administrative bodies to ensure that decisions made or assisted by algorithms are transparent, fair, explainable, and subject to oversight. As administrative decisions increasingly rely on automated systems and AI, ensuring these systems operate within legal and ethical boundaries becomes crucial.
Why is it Important in Administrative Law?
Transparency: Decisions made by algorithms must be explainable to the affected individuals.
Fairness: Algorithms should not produce biased or discriminatory outcomes.
Reviewability: There must be mechanisms for challenging and reviewing algorithm-driven decisions.
Due Process: People must have the opportunity to understand and contest automated decisions impacting their rights.
Challenges of Algorithmic Accountability in Administrative Law
Opacity: Algorithms, especially machine learning models, are often “black boxes” where it’s hard to explain how decisions are made.
Bias: Algorithms may reflect or amplify biases present in the training data.
Legal Framework: Existing laws may not clearly address how automated decisions should be reviewed.
Standard of Review: Courts must determine how much deference to give to automated decision-making.
Key Case Laws on Algorithmic Accountability in Administrative Law
1. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020)
Though primarily a constitutional case, this illustrates judicial scrutiny on government restrictions imposed during COVID-19, some of which involved algorithmic data (e.g., health metrics) to enforce regulations.
Significance:
The case raised questions about transparency and fairness when automated or data-driven decisions affect fundamental rights (e.g., religious freedoms). It emphasized the need for courts to review not only the substance but also the process by which decisions (possibly algorithm-driven) are made.
2. State of New York v. Department of Labor (2020)
This case involved the New York Department of Labor’s use of an algorithmic system for unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issue:
The automated system wrongfully flagged thousands of applicants for fraud, causing wrongful denial of benefits.
Held:
The court ordered the state to improve transparency and accountability in its algorithmic system, including better notice to applicants and procedural protections.
Significance:
It’s a leading example of algorithmic accountability in administrative law, emphasizing that when algorithms affect essential public benefits, the system must be auditable and fair.
3. Case of Loomis v. Wisconsin (2016)
Facts:
Eric Loomis challenged his sentencing in Wisconsin where a proprietary risk assessment algorithm (COMPAS) was used to predict recidivism and influenced the length of his sentence.
Issue:
Whether the use of an algorithmic risk score violated due process rights, especially since the algorithm was not transparent and the defendant couldn’t challenge its accuracy.
Held:
The court ruled that while the use of COMPAS did not violate due process per se, the defendant must be informed of its use and allowed to contest the evidence. The court stressed the need for transparency and the possibility of human oversight.
Significance:
This case set a precedent for algorithmic accountability in administrative and judicial decision-making, emphasizing the need for explainability and fairness in algorithmic tools.
4. European Court of Human Rights: Big Brother Watch v. United Kingdom (2018)
While from a human rights perspective, this case has strong administrative law implications regarding algorithmic surveillance and accountability.
Issue:
Whether the UK government’s bulk collection and analysis of telecommunications data (using automated algorithms) violated privacy rights without proper safeguards.
Held:
The Court found the practice violated the right to privacy due to insufficient oversight, transparency, and safeguards.
Significance:
This decision underlined that algorithmic surveillance by administrative bodies must be accountable, with proper legal frameworks and protections to prevent arbitrary decision-making.
5. Garland v. Michigan (2021)
Facts:
This U.S. case involved the use of facial recognition technology by police and administrative authorities to identify suspects.
Issue:
The accuracy and bias of the technology raised due process concerns, especially the lack of transparency about error rates and potential discriminatory impact.
Held:
While the court allowed the use, it stressed the need for strict procedural safeguards and transparency regarding algorithmic tools affecting liberty or administrative sanctions.
Significance:
This case highlights the growing judicial awareness about algorithmic accountability in administrative enforcement and law enforcement.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| South Bay United Pentecostal | Data-driven COVID restrictions | Transparency in decisions affecting rights |
| NY v. Department of Labor | Algorithmic errors in benefit denials | Need for auditability and procedural fairness |
| Loomis v. Wisconsin | Risk assessment in sentencing | Explainability and due process in algorithm use |
| Big Brother Watch v. UK | Bulk data surveillance and privacy | Accountability and safeguards in automated surveillance |
| Garland v. Michigan | Facial recognition and bias | Procedural safeguards and transparency |
In a nutshell:
Algorithmic accountability in administrative law is about ensuring fairness, transparency, and the possibility of judicial review of automated decisions.
Courts are increasingly requiring explainability and human oversight.
Administrative bodies must maintain transparency and provide recourse to affected individuals.
Cases like Loomis and NY Department of Labor highlight the challenges and evolving standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments