The court orders tracker holds 251 entries on AI in court filings: judges’ standing orders, district local rules, state court rules, and a handful of agency policies. As of October 2, 2026, 228 are in force, and 182 of those bind attorneys. Among the in-force orders addressed to attorneys, more of them require verification (146) than disclosure (111).
Two questions run through these orders. One is whether the filer must tell the court that AI was used. The other is whether the filer checked what the tool produced and will answer for it. A third answer has appeared in 2026: a certification about citations that applies whatever tool produced them. This post counts each, and looks at the orders that answer differently and the orders courts have withdrawn.
What the tracker counts
The counts in this post use the same test as the tracker’s filter buttons, so each number matches the filter a reader can click. Three duties are counted.
Disclosure means the order requires the filer to state affirmatively that AI was used. The Northern District of Texas is the plainest example: under N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) (tracker entry), a brief prepared using generative AI “must disclose this fact on the first page.”
Verification means the order requires the filer to check AI-generated content before filing, either through an express certification or by making the signer answerable for anything unverified. The Eastern District of Texas takes the second route. General Order 25-07 (tracker entry) amended Local Rules CV-11(g), for self-represented litigants, and AT-3(m), for attorneys. A filer who uses generative AI remains bound by Rule 11 and must review and verify the AI-generated content against its standards.
Citation certification means the signer makes a representation about the cited authorities themselves, whether or not AI was involved. Depending on the rule, the signer represents that they exist, that they are authentic, or that they are accurately cited. The rule does not depend on how the filing was drafted.
Only orders in force and addressed to attorneys count toward any of these duties. Rescinded and lapsed orders, proposals, and policies aimed at court staff are left out. The unit is the tracker entry, not the court: a district’s local rule and a judge’s standing order in the same district are two entries.
How disclosure and verification overlap
146 in-force entries require verification and 111 require disclosure. The overlap is large. 101 require both, 45 require verification without disclosure, and 10 require disclosure alone.
The combined form usually looks like a certification. Judge Nina Y. Wang’s standing order (tracker entry) in the District of Colorado requires every filing to carry a certification regarding “the use, or non-use” of generative AI. Where AI was used, the filer also certifies that a person reviewed its output and that the cited cases are real. In the District of Nevada, Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III’s standing order (tracker entry) pairs a certification of AI use with a warning that failing to confirm an AI-sourced citation is grounds for sanctions.
Where an order requires both, a disclosure line alone does not satisfy it. The verification step is the part that takes work, and the disclosure attaches to it.
Certifications that never mention AI
4 in-force entries impose a citation certification, and 20 entries bind attorneys without imposing any AI-specific duty at all.
Florida’s is the largest. In In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026) (tracker entry), the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515. Every signer now represents that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.” The rule’s text does not mention artificial intelligence. The Court said it acted “principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings.” Its companion order, AOSC26-12, provides that Florida courts “may not impose” such requirements, “whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means.”
Indiana followed in July 2026. Under the Indiana Supreme Court’s order in No. 26S-MS-8 (tracker entry), a signature on a trial-court filing certifies “that any cited legal authority is authentic,” a representation about authenticity rather than accuracy. Trial Rule 11 states that it covers submissions “prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, the internet, or other resources.” The Texas Supreme Court has proposed a representation of verified accuracy for civil and appellate filings in Misc. Docket No. 26-9054 (tracker entry); the tracker records it as proposed until a final order issues.
Two Texas rules take the same approach without a certification. The Texas Business Court’s Local Rule 10(c) (tracker entry) says that “[u]se of artificial intelligence is not prohibited.” The filer “is independently responsible for the accuracy of all filings.” The Southern District of Texas’s General Order 2025-04 (tracker entry) holds a signer responsible under Rule 11 whether or not AI drafted any part of the filing.
Orders courts have withdrawn or that have lapsed
20 entries are no longer in force: 11 rescinded by the courts that issued them, 7 superseded by a later order, and 2 lapsed when the issuing judge left the court.
The largest group of rescissions is Florida’s. After the Supreme Court acted, the 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th and 19th Circuits withdrew their circuit-wide AI orders, each citing the rule amendment or AOSC26-12. The Florida rule entry traces each one.
Individual judges have withdrawn disclosure duties too:
- Judge Cecilia A. Horan of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, required in her 2024 standing order that any use of large language model AI be indicated in a filing’s caption. Her order effective June 30, 2025 reversed course: “It is not necessary to disclose to the Court any use of large language model artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, in the preparation of briefs or other submissions to the Court.” Her next Calendar 9 order, effective June 8, 2026, dropped the AI section entirely (tracker entry).
- Judge Gerald V. Cleary III, also in Cook County, removed the on-document AI disclosure and verification statement of his 2024 jury-trial standing order in a replacement order entered March 10, 2025 (tracker entry).
- Judge Evelyn Padin of the District of New Jersey narrowed the disclosure and certification requirement in her 2023 procedures to a certification of human review in a May 28, 2026 revision, then removed the generative AI section in a September 10, 2026 revision (tracker entry).
The Western District of North Carolina made a similar move district-wide. Its 2024 standing order required a separate two-part AI certification with every brief. Under its July 2026 order (tracker entry), “the filing of a separate certificate regarding the use of AI is no longer required.” Instead, every filer “is deemed to have certified” that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, and the order requires “human verification” of the filing’s contents.
The withdrawals share a pattern. Each dropped a separate disclosure or AI certificate, and none relieved filers of the general duty to check what they file.
The other direction: stricter and consolidated orders
Not every change runs toward less. Senior Judge Jane J. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas, by a requirement posted on her chambers page and effective September 1, 2026, bars AI-generated text from attorney filings in her cases: “No text generated by artificial intelligence may be used in any portion of any pleading, motion, brief, or other filing made by an attorney before Judge Boyle.” Using AI to find errors is allowed but must be disclosed under the district’s Local Rule 7.2(f) (tracker entry).
In Texas state courts, judges consolidated rather than withdrew. In July 2026 the 30th, 78th and 89th District Courts of Wichita County signed a joint order (tracker entry) to replace their three separate orders. It requires a signed certification, attached to each pleading generated using AI, that AI-contributed content was verified through traditional legal sources. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 3a(c) provides that “[t]o be effective, local rules, forms, and standing orders must be published on the Office of Court Administration’s website.” As of September 30, 2026, the joint order did not appear there, and the tracker entry reports that fact without drawing a conclusion about the order’s effect. In the 394th District, Judge Monty Kimball signed an updated order (tracker entry) on July 22, 2026, and the court’s website now lists it in place of Judge Roy B. Ferguson’s earlier order. It requires a signed certification that AI-supplied content was verified through traditional (non-AI) legal sources “by a human being or attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas.” Four superseded entries account for these changes.
Limits on use are rare and specific
8 in-force entries carry the tracker’s use-restriction flag. The flag covers limits on using AI to prepare filings; an order that only restricts AI in the courtroom does not carry it. The entries restrict different things:
- Judge Boyle’s order, described above, bars AI-generated text in attorney filings.
- Judge Christopher A. Boyko in the Northern District of Ohio and Judge Michael J. Newman in the Southern District of Ohio bar AI “in the preparation of any filing,” with carve-outs for legal research platforms such as Westlaw and LexisNexis and for general search engines (Boyko order and tracker entry; Newman order and tracker entry).
- Judge Donald W. Molloy in the District of Montana admits out-of-state counsel on the condition that they do their own work. His order in Belenzon v. Paws Up Ranch, LLC, No. CV 23-69-M-DWM (D. Mont. June 22, 2023), ECF No. 8 states: “Use of artificial intelligence automated drafting programs, such as Chat GPT, is prohibited” (tracker entry for his admission orders).
- Senior Judge Robert E. Payne’s scheduling orders in the Eastern District of Virginia require a certification with every brief that no AI was used for research beyond what is embedded in Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase and Bloomberg (example order; tracker entry).
Courtroom limits are counted elsewhere. Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim’s civil standing orders in the Eastern District of California bar using AI to alter a person’s appearance or voice in remote appearances, and her trial procedures require written pre-trial notice of AI-generated exhibits (tracker entry). The Wichita County joint order prohibits AI use in the courtroom and court offices. Neither restricts how a filing is prepared, so neither carries the use-restriction flag.
Firms that appear before one of the judges who restrict drafting may wish to confirm how the order treats research platforms before relying on an AI feature inside one.
Federal and state
Of the 182 entries binding attorneys, 101 come from federal courts and 81 from state court systems. The tracker records orders it can find in published sources, so both counts are floors rather than a census.
What firms documenting compliance may wish to consider
- A per-court check at intake. The operative duty can sit in a judge’s standing order, a district’s local rule, or a statewide rule, and a matter can be subject to more than one. In Florida the statewide rule now displaces local AI disclosure orders. The tracker’s filters separate orders that require disclosure from those that require verification.
- A verification record that serves every kind of order. 101 of the 111 orders requiring disclosure also require verification, and the citation certifications rest on the same check. A log showing who checked each citation and quotation supports compliance with any of them. The site’s verification log and court disclosure templates are starting points.
- A review when an order changes. Florida’s circuits, the Western District of North Carolina, and several individual judges withdrew or replaced their orders in 2025 and 2026, while others added stricter terms. A template built for an old order can overstate or understate what a court now asks.
About these numbers
Every figure above is computed from the tracker’s collection each time the site is built, using the same in-force and attorney-facing test as the tracker’s filters. Counts describe entries in this tracker as of October 2, 2026, not every AI order in the country, and a new entry, a rescission, or a judge’s departure changes them on the next build. Quotations come from the orders themselves, linked at first mention; each tracker entry also cites its primary source.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Court rules and standing orders change, and a judge’s current order controls. Confirm the requirements for a specific filing against the court’s own posting, and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for representation-specific questions.