A.E. v. Powell et al

This case originated from the Predictive Risk Assessment of Minors (PRAM) program, operated by the newly created Social Data Administration. The program used an algorithm to analyze social data, school records, and family history to assign a "future criminality score" to minors. A.E., a 16-year-old high school student, was given a high-risk score after her family's financial struggles were logged in a public benefits database. Based on this score, she was flagged to law enforcement, preemptively placed on a no-fly list, denied a college preparatory grant, and subjected to mandatory counseling. A.E. had no criminal record. Represented by the Digital Rights Law Center, A.E. filed a lawsuit on March 19, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the PRAM program's secretive, unaccountable nature violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction halting the PRAM program. In its ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their due process claim, stating that citizens have a right to a meaningful explanation and an opportunity to challenge a government-generated risk score that results in concrete, stigmatizing deprivations of liberty and opportunity. The case is currently pending a full trial on the merits. The court did not order the expungement of existing scores but barred their further use pending the final judgment.

The central dispute was whether the government's use of a predictive algorithm to impose burdens on a minor without any prior criminal conduct constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case also questioned the proprietary "black box" nature of the algorithm and the inability of citizens to challenge or understand the data sources and logic that generated their risk scores.

The filing of the case triggered a national debate on "pre-crime" governance and algorithmic justice. Civil liberties organizations hailed it as a landmark challenge to the surveillance state. A coalition of technology ethics scholars filed an amicus brief highlighting the risk of such tools codifying historic biases. Conversely, proponents argued the program was a necessary, data-driven tool for crime prevention. The case prompted several state legislatures to introduce bills demanding algorithmic transparency and the right to human review over automated government decisions, signaling a profound societal reckoning with the boundaries of predictive technology in public administration.