Abstract

State AI regulation must govern decisions with local consequences while respecting interstate commerce and federal law. States should begin with the AI-mediated decision: who makes it, which state authority reaches that actor, what evidence accountability requires, and how an affected person can obtain review. Constitutional constraints can guide the choice of duties without dictating a single lawful arrangement.

The argument makes three contributions. It connects Dormant Commerce Clause and preemption analysis to the design of particular deployer duties, comparing their actual burdens and federal overlaps. It develops regulatory resilience as a portfolio of consumer-protection, civil-rights, licensing and procurement channels, while testing whether each can support the same duty and remedy. It then specifies statutory duties, evidence and enforcement consequences informed by the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 42001.

Existing state laws already supply important components. The added step is a worked account of how those components fit together, where they conflict with federal requirements, and what remains necessary for implementation. Hospital, hiring and insurance applications test the design against different legal settings. The proposed design makes information access, contestable decisions and enforcement capacity central to accountability. Its durability depends on the duties enacted and the institutions able to enforce them; neither process compliance nor a familiar state authority guarantees protection or relief.

About the paper

An employer ranking applicants, a hospital using a recommendation in treatment and an insurer assessing an application face different legal obligations. This paper begins with the organization using AI in the decision, then asks what evidence it must retain, who may inspect it and how an affected person can challenge the result.

The intended readers include legislators, regulators, lawyers and AI governance professionals. The downloadable paper contains the full argument, source notes, two figures and worked statutory provisions. This page introduces the work and follows its six Parts and Appendix in order.

Main arguments

  1. Constitutional analysis should guide particular duties. The paper compares deployer duties by actor, conduct, territorial connection, federal overlap and remedy. Locating responsibility at deployment makes the inquiry concrete without settling whether a duty is lawful.
  2. Institutional choices shape regulatory resilience. Consumer protection, civil rights, licensing and procurement offer different routes to duties and relief. The paper tests each route against its authority and federal constraints; a portfolio supplies no constitutional barrier to congressional preemption.
  3. Process obligations need evidence and recourse. The worked statute connects documentation, risk assessment, auditability, monitoring, incident response and recourse to responsible institutions. Information access, review powers and enforcement capacity determine what those duties can deliver.

Inside the paper

Part I: Introduction. The paper identifies its three contributions and explains why the AI-mediated decision provides a starting point for accountability.

Part II: Constitutional analysis. Comparisons of state duties examine discrimination, territorial effects, interstate burdens and federal conflicts. Each comparison identifies the actor, conduct, federal overlap and proposed remedy.

Part III: The deployer-centered model. The argument locates responsibility at the organization using AI and considers how existing state measures supply components of the proposed duties. The New York and California comparison distinguishes enactment, commencement, coverage and remedies.

Part IV: State authorities. Consumer protection, civil rights, licensing and procurement are tested as routes to particular duties and remedies. Their availability depends on the relevant authority and governing federal law.

Part V: Implementation. Procurement controls, impact assessment, audit trails and dispute pathways connect evidence to oversight and relief. Hospital, hiring and insurance applications test those connections; the capacity discussion identifies funding and institutional choices still needed at enactment.

Part VI: Conclusion. The paper brings the legal and institutional choices together and asks which duties states can administer and enforce.

Appendix: Worked statutory text. Proposed provisions address procurement, private-deployer assessment, audit trails and dispute pathways. They leave state-specific institutional, funding and other completion choices to the enacting legislature.

Scope and edition

This is working paper v2, revised October 2026. The paper’s research cutoff is October 16, 2026. Its claim is conditional: accountability depends on the duties enacted, access to evidence and the institutions able to provide review and relief.