During oral arguments held on Monday at the Supreme Court of the United States, Associate Justice Samuel Alito made a lighthearted reference to Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic. Alito questioned the petitioner's counsel, asking if the justices should ask Claude to decide the case currently under consideration. The remark drew laughter from the courtroom, highlighting the growing integration of artificial intelligence into professional legal discourse. The case in question, Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, involves the authority of federal courts to confirm arbitration awards. There was no direct connection between the legal issues at hand and the AI model. Instead, Alito's comment was likely a nod to the petitioner's attorney, Adam Unikowsky, a known advocate for AI in the legal field. Unikowsky, an attorney at Jenner & Block who has argued more than a dozen cases before the high court, is an enthusiastic proponent of using generative AI tools in legal practice. Unikowsky has publicly explored the capabilities of AI in law through various newsletter posts. In June 2024, he argued that artificial intelligence could accurately decide cases and draft judicial opinions. His research included testing Claude against briefs from several Supreme Court cases, where he found the model consistently rendered correct decisions. He noted that when the AI's conclusion differed from the actual outcome of the court, the alternative disposition was invariably reasonable. Furthermore, Unikowsky conducted an experiment last year in which he utilized Claude to present an oral argument before a court. Based on the results, he concluded that courts should permit robot lawyers to participate in oral arguments rather than discouraging such practices. Alito's joke appears to be a direct acknowledgment of these recent developments and Unikowsky's previous statements regarding the potential of AI in the judicial process. While the Supreme Court has not yet adopted AI for decision-making, the interaction underscores a shift in perspective among legal professionals regarding the technology's role. The conversation illustrates a growing awareness of how large language models might impact legal procedures, from case analysis to courtroom representation. Although the immediate suggestion to let an AI decide the outcome was met with humor, the underlying discussion reflects a serious consideration of AI's capabilities and limitations within the justice system. This exchange serves as a reminder of the rapid evolution of technology in law. As lawyers like Unikowsky continue to test and refine the application of AI tools, the boundaries of legal practice may expand. The Supreme Court's openness to such topics, even in jest, suggests that the institution is attentive to these changes. Whether or not AI will eventually participate in judicial reasoning remains to be seen, but the conversation has undeniably begun.