> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://bsquarebulletin.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Analysis: Bloomington’s proposed superintelligence ban raises questions about authority, enforcement - URL: https://bsquarebulletin.com/analysis-bloomingtons-proposed-superintelligence-ban-raises-questions-about-authority-enforcement/ - Published: 2026-10-11T17:17:31.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-11T17:17:31.000Z - Description: Bloomington councilmember Dave Rollo’s current effort to address AI risks would ban superintelligent systems within city limits, even when hosted elsewhere. Unlike a resolutions, the proposed ordinance would carry penalties, but raises legal questions about city authority, enforcement and repeal. - Author: Dave Askins - Tags: Local Government, #no-inline-feature ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/6f/206f9007-c0a7-47d4-b87b-686c21961f22/content/images/2026/10/2026-10-11-bsquarebulletin.comwp-contentuploads2024062024-06-12-rollo-IMG_8387-topaz-denoise-sharpen-1.jpeg) B Square file photo of Bloomington city councilmember Dave Rollo from June 12, 2024. Bloomington city councilmember Dave Rollo is making a third effort in a little more than three years to get government to do something about the dangers he sees in artificial intelligence. His first two efforts asked other levels of government to act. This one wouldn’t wait for others. It would change Bloomington’s local law to prohibit the deployment of superintelligent systems inside city limits. Rollo’s [ordinance](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-14-Bloomington-city-council-Ord-2026-29-Artificial-Intelligence-Rollo.pdf) is set for introduction at the council’s Wednesday (Oct. 14) meeting. That means it could get some discussion, but wouldn’t see final action until the council’s following meeting, which is on the calendar for [Nov. 4](https://bloomington.in.gov/council/meetings/2026 ). The key section of the proposed new local law reads like this: “No person or corporation shall distribute or permit to be distributed nor deployed into the premises of any citizen or business in our City, any Superintelligence for any purpose.” The ordinance is based on the idea that advanced superintelligent AI systems can escape human control, and the idea that human extinction at the hands of superintelligent AI is highly likely. The phrase “in our city” has a broad intended meaning. The ban would apply to a superintelligent system hosted on a computer anywhere, as long as someone uses it from within city limits. That geographic reach raises some questions. Among them: Does Bloomington have the legal authority to regulate technology supplied from outside its boundaries? The ordinance is intended as a kind of stop-gap measure until state legislation is enacted. A [five-page memo](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-14-Bloomington-city-council-Ord-2026-29-Artificial-Intelligence-Rollo.pdf) from Rollo and the council office calls the ordinance an “interim safety perimeter” to protect Bloomington until state and federal governments establish adequate regulation. Rollo’s proposed local law has an automatic path to dissolution if Indiana’s General Assembly enacts legislation establishing a “comprehensive framework for Provably Safe Superintelligence.” Without action by the state legislature, lifting the ban would require approval by more than 95% of the city’s registered voters. That, too, raises questions about Bloomington’s legal authority, to hold a referendum. Rollo says in the memo that if other cities follow Bloomington’s example, it will create a cumulative regulatory burden on companies developing superintelligent AI. ### From resolutions to an ordinance Rollo’s first effort to get the city council to take action against the dangers of superintelligence came in July 2023\. He introduced a resolution that called for a moratorium on developing artificial general intelligence until it could be guaranteed to align with human values and well-being. The resolution was nonbinding. Its effect would have been to tell state and federal officials where the council stood on the topic. But Indiana University relayed concerns about possible effects on research funding. After about an hour of discussion, at the council’s meeting on July 26, 2023, Rollo [withdrew the measure ](https://bsquarebulletin.com/bloomington-resolution-on-hazards-of-general-ai-withdrawn-after-indiana-university-weighs-in/)when it became clear his proposal lacked enough votes. Rollo tried again this year, this time successfully. On June 10, the council unanimously approved a [resolution](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-06-10-Artificial-Intelligence-Res%5F2026-10.pdf ) urging elected officials to address the risks of artificial general intelligence, and calling for a federal moratorium on its development until safety could be guaranteed. The [ordinance](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-14-Bloomington-city-council-Ord-2026-29-Artificial-Intelligence-Rollo.pdf) Rollo is introducing this coming week does more than a resolution could. Instead of asking federal officials to impose a moratorium, Bloomington would impose its own, written into the municipal code, with penalties and lawsuits on the table. ### What counts as superintelligence? The [ordinance](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-14-Bloomington-city-council-Ord-2026-29-Artificial-Intelligence-Rollo.pdf) would add Chapter 14.25, “Prohibition of Superintelligence,” to [Title 14](https://library.municode.com/in/bloomington/codes/code%5Fof%5Fordinances?nodeId=TIT14PESA ) of the municipal code, which covers peace and safety. It’s the chapter that includes the noise ordinance. The proposed ordinance describes superintelligence as an advanced form of artificial general intelligence (AGI) with superhuman capabilities involving agency, generality and intelligence. The definition mentions systems capable of modifying their own algorithms, running code outside restricted environments, or operating without continuous human oversight. The definition ends with what it calls the AI industry’s standard terminology: “Any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest.” The ordinance doesn’t establish a test, name a certifying authority or say who decides whether a system has crossed the line to superintelligence. The ordinance also doesn’t say what evidence the city would need to prove a violation. ### Could using a website break the law? One of the most consequential provisions of Rollo’s proposed ordinance is about location. Under the ordinance, deployment includes using superintelligence through “a locally accessed user interface, browser, application programming interface (API), or connected local hardware within the geographic boundaries of the City of Bloomington,” no matter where the server running it is located. So this isn’t just a prohibition against building a superintelligence data center somewhere in the city of Bloomington. It attempts to regulate what comes in over the internet. The ordinance appears to cover a scenario where a California company develops a system that Bloomington considers superintelligent, and a Bloomington resident from their home computer visits the company’s website to use the system. In that scenario, based on the wording of the ordinance, it looks like both the resident and the company could be breaking the law. The ordinance doesn’t spell out a separate responsibility for the user and the provider. It also doesn’t say how Bloomington would discover that someone accessed a prohibited system. To justify its authority, the preamble to the ordinance points to the city’s powers over zoning, land use and utilities, comparing superintelligence to hazardous materials that local governments can regulate. But regulating a hazardous facility located inside the city limits Bloomington doesn’t raise questions about jurisdiction and interstate commerce in the way the proposed ordinance regulating artificial intelligence does. ### Enforcement would be discretionary One section of the proposed new law would authorize Bloomington’s legal and police departments to enforce the ban through civil penalties and court orders. It also allows referrals to the Monroe County prosecutor if the conduct might violate existing state criminal law. Violations would fall under the municipal code’s [general penalty provision](https://library.municode.com/in/bloomington/codes/code%5Fof%5Fordinances?nodeId=TIT1GEPR%5FCH1.01CO%5F1.01.130VIEN) which allows fines up to $2,500\. Continuing violations can bring separate penalties for each day. But enforcement is discretionary. The ordinance doesn’t require the city to investigate or stop every violation, and it preserves the city’s existing legal immunities. The wording of the ordinance puts it like this: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to create a mandatory duty on the part of the City to prevent or abate every violation …” That helps explain why the fiscal impact statement predicts no effect on city finances. Some Bloomington residents might think to use laws already on the books to litigate against an AI company for injuries they have suffered. The ordinance says that the new local law would preserve whatever remedies injured persons and businesses already have under state or federal law. But preserving existing remedies is different from creating new grounds for lawsuits. Rollo’s memo claims such an ordinance could also help plaintiffs pursue litigation against AI developers. It’s not clear how Indiana state law would factor into the mix, given the [statutory prohibition](https://iga.in.gov/laws/2026/ic/titles/36#36-1-3-8 ) against municipalities prescribing the law that governing civil lawsuits between private parties. ### How the ban could end The ordinance says Bloomington’s ban on superintelligence will expire 91 days after a state law takes effect establishing a comprehensive framework for provably safe superintelligence. But there’s no fixed expiration date. Without qualifying state action or a local repeal, the ban could remain on the books indefinitely. The ordinance sets two conditions for the council to lift the ban. First, the council would have to find broad scientific consensus that superintelligence can be developed and controlled safely, with an assessment showing 99.9999% certainty of safety. The proposal compares that threshold to nuclear power plant safety standards. It doesn’t identify a specific engineering standard or explain how the probability of catastrophic harm from superintelligence would be calculated. Second, more than 95% of Bloomington’s registered voters would have to approve the development of superintelligence. The distinction between registered voters and ballots cast matters. Even unanimous approval among those voting wouldn’t satisfy the requirement, unless turnout exceeded 95% of all registered voters. There’s also a question of how such an election could legally take place. Indiana’s Home Rule Act gives municipalities broad powers, but [state law](https://iga.in.gov/laws/2026/ic/titles/36#36-1-3-8 ) specifically prohibits local governments from conducting elections without explicit statutory authorization. A successful referendum alone would not lift the ban. The proposed ordinance says the prohibition on superintelligence cannot be lifted unless the council passes another ordinance finding that both the scientific and voter-approval conditions have been met. So a successful referendum wouldn’t itself lift the ban. ### What about simple repeal? There’s a more basic legal question: What would prevent a future council from simply repealing the ordinance, without meeting either condition? That is, it’s not clear why a future council couldn’t just repeal the entire ordinance itself, without first demonstrating 99.9999% safety for superintelligence, or obtaining approval from 95% of registered voters. Nothing about the proposed ordinance appears to prevent a future city council, or even the current edition of the council, from repealing the ban through the ordinary legislative process. Bloomington’s [municipal code](https://library.municode.com/in/bloomington/codes/code%5Fof%5Fordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE%5FCH2.04COCO%5FARTIVORRE%5F2.04.340OREPMO) talks explicitly about ordinances being repealed or modified by later ordinances. A repeal would require a simple majority of the nine-member council, unless the mayor vetoed the repeal, but could be overridden by the ordinary override procedure., which would need six votes. ### Aiming for a national effect The ordinance affects only Bloomington’s local law, but Rollo’s [memo](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-14-Bloomington-city-council-Ord-2026-29-Artificial-Intelligence-Rollo.pdf#page=4 ) makes clear that his intent extends beyond the city. He envisions hundreds of cities following Bloomington’s example. His memo puts it like this: “If those (approximately 350) cities passed similar ordinances in the coming weeks or months, this would create a massive regulatory burden for companies creating ASI.” It identifies the SAFE AI Forever Institute and other nonprofits as potential promoters of similar legislation. So the strategy isn’t just about enforcing a local ban. It’s about encouraging a model that other cities could adopt, adding regulatory and legal pressure on technology companies. ### The question in front of the council Rollo’s earlier two proposals asked higher levels of government to deal with the dangers he sees in increasingly capable AI. The proposal that will be in front of the Bloomington council next Wednesday would have Bloomington enact its own ban. That would go beyond a statement of concern. But a central legal issue is whether everything that new local law would try to do would be within an Indiana city’s reach. Next [Wednesday (Oct. 14)](https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/17580/download), the ordinance could see some discussion, but won’t get a vote. But if any discussion does unfold, it might at least become clear how much support Rollo’s effort has from his colleagues.