- within Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
- with readers working within the Technology industries
On January 9, 2026, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced the creation of an Artificial Intelligence Litigation Task Force ("Task Force") through an internal memorandum. The Task Force's primary mandate is to challenge state laws regulating artificial intelligence. Its creation was directed by the President in a December 11, 2025, Executive Order titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," which seeks to reduce regulatory compliance costs, particularly for start-ups and emerging technology companies. The Executive Order rests on the premise that compliance with a "patchwork" of state-by-state regulation impedes innovation more than adherence to a minimally burdensome national standard.
Structure of the Task Force
The Task Force will be chaired by the Attorney General and includes senior leadership from across the Justice Department, with the Associate Attorney General as Vice Chair and representatives from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the DOJ's Civil Division. The Attorney General is authorized to appoint additional members to the Task Force as appropriate. The composition of the Task Force signals that challenges to state AI laws will be treated as matters of institutional and constitutional significance rather than routine regulatory disputes.
An essential feature of the Task Force is its formal role in coordinating AI policy and enforcement across the Executive Branch. The Task Force will consult with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, senior economic policy officials within the White House, and the Counsel to the President. The Department of Commerce will also play a central role by evaluating state AI laws and referring those it deems overly burdensome on industry participants to the Task Force for potential litigation. Notably, all these actors reside within the Executive Branch.
Preemption Without Congress
The preference for a single national regulatory standard over a patchwork of state regulation is not new. Several familiar federal regulatory frameworks expressly preempt state regulation to preserve nationwide uniformity. Prominent examples include the deregulation of the airline industry, where Congress both deregulated air carriers and expressly prohibited states from exercising regulatory authority over airline prices, routes, and services,1 and the Clean Air Act, which substantially restricts states' ability to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles absent a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency.2 In these contexts, Congress made a deliberate choice to displace state regulation in favor of a unified federal framework.
The Task Force's mission bears a fundamental resemblance to these statutory preemption regimes. Just as Congress sought a single regulatory standard for airlines and automobile emissions, the Executive Order underlying the Task Force reflects a policy judgment that uniform federal treatment of AI is preferable to state-by-state regulation. The crucial distinction, however, is institutional rather than substantive. Unlike the Airline Deregulation Act and the Clean Air Act, which are both products of Congressional action, the Task Force stands to achieve regulatory uniformity through litigation and Executive coordination alone. In other words, the federal government is seeking to constrain state AI regulation through Article II powers, rather than through express statutory preemption enacted by Congress.
Practical Implications
This Article II-driven approach means that the Task Force's creation alone is insufficient to displace state law or immediately alter the regulatory obligations that AI businesses face. Any meaningful effect depends on a multi-step process: The Commerce Department must first identify and refer a state law to the Task Force, the Justice Department must initiate litigation, and a court must grant injunctive relief. That process can take considerable time, and even preliminary injunctions, while available, require litigants to satisfy a demanding standard.
As a result, the Task Force's efforts are likely to proceed methodically rather than produce rapid, sweeping changes. Courts will take time to weigh the merits of each claim, and preliminary relief is not guaranteed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
