Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


Algorithms and the Feds: A Violation of Due Process?

3/24/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.


In my last blog post, we started talking about potential legal hurdles endemic to the usage of machine learning algorithms by federal and state governments. Particularly, we mentioned some issues that courts will grapple with in deciding whether these algorithms violate the nondelegation provision of Article I of the United States Constitution. But, as one can imagine, there are a plethora of legal issues that might make it onto the dockets of federal courts concerning the proliferation of technology in government rulemaking decisions. In this post, we will examine the question: Do machine learning algorithms in lieu of rulemaking violate our guarantee of due process as citizens?

Due process considerations are not novel when it comes to the federal government. Since federal agencies have been making and executing rules, they have had to justify actions that could deprive individuals of property or entitlements for centuries. Yet, as discussed in my last post, it seems that if these algorithms are used in a more support or research function, then we might not cross the issue of due process. But let us assume that these algorithms will be used for large-scale policy decisions. What does our current legal system hint at concerning these optimization techniques?
From a jurisprudence perspective, we see the Supreme Court put teeth on due process in Goldberg v. Kelly, where entitlements such as welfare were given due process protections. However, Mathews v. Eldridge later ruled that in lieu of Social Security disability benefits, the government could develop a paper-only review process and break the historic trend of offering those applicants an in-person hearing. Although it did not overturn the premise of Goldberg, it developed a three-pronged test used to today to determine whether due process has been satisfied in such cases. [1]

The points are: “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” [2] But more so, “…due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” [3]

We will discuss each of these prongs of the test in turn, with keeping in mind an important point of administrative jurisprudence: the fact pattern matters. Many of these algorithms will be context dependent, and so generalizations may be difficult and in some cases usage of machine learning might violate due process.  But, we can conjecture based on legal precedent in the Mathews test about how machine learning algorithms might fair.

The first prong is that there is a private interest at stake. Particularly, the government will have to prove in litigation that its usage of a particular algorithm will have low error rates. Calculating a confusion table for this algorithm will be a key statistic in judicial review, where we can see the rate of false positives and false negatives if the government wishes to use the algorithm for classification purposes. [4].  If the government can prove that this algorithm has lower error rates than an in-person hearing, for example, then this algorithm might pass the first part of this due process challenge.

The second hearing goes to a recent rift in legal jurisprudence. Ever since the D.C. Circuit in Business Roundtable v. SEC struck down the SEC’s proxy access rule because the SEC did not “adequately consider all the costs” of the proposed rule, the rule was designated “arbitrary and capricious” – the death sentence for federal regulations. [5] Although a separate legal argument can develop around if the courts should be checking such cost-benefit analyses of agencies, we see in the Mathews test that this Court envisioned some sort of quantitative cost-benefit analysis to justify any infringement on due process. Here, we may even see courts try to determine a level of error that a machine learning algorithm should not cross. But, here, any statistician will find fault in this argument. There is a general divergence upon what is a “minimum error rate.” [6] Although asymptotically there may be arguments concerning acceptable error rates, it will be up to the agencies to develop these quantitative metrics for any judicial oversight involving due process.  

As for the final point concerning the government’s interest, the agency in this situation will have have the burden to provethat the usage of this algorithm will defeat any potential fiscal or administrative burdens the government will entail. Here, once again doing some cost-benefit analysis will be helpful, as well as noting whether there are fiscal advantages of this algorithm such as decreasing agency costs.  Overall, it seems likely that the agency will be able to prove that there is a government’s interest in this algorithm so long as it has documented the evaluation of the algorithm through training, evaluation, and finally test data to get (mostly) unbiased results. [7]

Although many of these topics concerning the case law and machine learning can get rather technical, this is a potential reality of our courts in the future. Will we have independent court statisticians evaluate the soundness of machine learning algorithms? Will the historic Chevron doctrine still play a role and courts end up deferring to agencies in interpretations of rules via machine learning ends? Undoubtedly, with the proliferated usage of technology, our potentially antiquated courts might be thrust into the 21st Century.

[1]. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
[2]. Id. at 335.
[3]. Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972).
[4]. Berk, Richard (2015). Statistical Learning from a Regression Perspective. Springer, pp. 108-110.
[5]. Business Roundtable v. SEC, 647 F. 3d 1144 (2011)
[6]. Coglianese, Cary and David Lehr (2017). Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era, pp. 80-81.
[7] Berk, pp. 15

Photo Credit Flickr User: Christiaan Colen

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.