Most entries in the court orders tracker are orders of a single judge or a single court. In 2026, several state supreme courts adopted rules that reach every filer in the state, and most of those rules ask for verification or a citation certification rather than disclosure of AI use.
As of October 2, 2026, the court orders tracker holds 22 instruments issued by a state court system for the whole state: 20 in force, and 2 adopted or proposed but not yet in force. Of the in-force instruments, 15 address attorneys, parties, or self-represented litigants, and 5 govern only the courts’ own use of AI. These are counts of tracker entries; a state with a rule and a separate advisory notice counts twice.
Verification and certification, not disclosure
Among the in-force statewide instruments that bind attorneys, the tracker counts 4 that require verification of AI output and 2 that require a certification about citations, whatever tool was used. The number that require disclosure of AI use is 0. Across the whole tracker, where most entries are orders of a single judge or a single court, 111 in-force entries require disclosure. The statewide rules took a different path.
Connecticut wrote an AI-specific verification duty into its rules of practice. Practice Book § 4-9 (tracker entry), adopted by the judges of the Superior Court and effective June 23, 2026, provides that “any person who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative AI.” Signing a pleading certifies compliance. Amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure (tracker entry), effective July 14, 2026, carry the same duty into appellate filings and make the failure to verify sanctionable.
Florida chose a rule that does not mention AI at all. In In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026) (tracker entry), effective June 15, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court added a representation that every signer makes on filing: that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.” The rule applies to attorneys and to unrepresented parties. A companion order, AOSC26-12, goes further. It displaces the local AI disclosure and certification requirements that individual Florida courts had adopted: “courts may not impose such requirements – whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means.”
Indiana took the same technology-neutral approach. The Indiana Supreme Court’s order in No. 26S-MS-8 (tracker entry), signed July 14, 2026 and effective August 1, 2026, amended Trial Rule 11 so that a signature certifies “that any cited legal authority is authentic.” The rule states that it covers submissions “prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence, the internet, or other resources,” and a new Trial Rule 11.2 lists citing fictitious authority among the conduct that can support an abusive-litigant finding.
Texas has proposed the same kind of rule. Misc. Docket No. 26-9054 (tracker entry), dated June 26, 2026, would make every signer of a civil trial-court or appellate filing represent that “the signer reviewed the filing and verified its accuracy, including that the legal citations, quotations, and holdings are not fabricated.” Comments closed September 1, 2026. The order says the Court expects the amendments to take effect October 1, 2026, after a finalizing order; the tracker records the rule as proposed until that order issues.
New York declined to impose a statewide duty and left the choice to individual courts. 22 NYCRR Part 161 (tracker entry), in force since June 1, 2026, sets a statewide policy that AI use should not be prohibited and disclosure should not be required. It invites each court to adopt an Appendix A model rule. Under the model rule, a lawyer or party who used AI must review the paper for fabricated content: “By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted and that the paper contains no such fabricated or fictitious content.” Whether that certification applies depends on the court.
Two advisory instruments point the same way. North Dakota’s public notice of June 1, 2026 (tracker entry) states that “the North Dakota courts do not require disclosure of AI use in court filings solely because AI was used,” and reminds filers that Rule 11 applies whether or not AI was used. Rhode Island’s Supreme Court adopted interim generative AI guidelines (tracker entry) on June 17, 2026, which state that they are advisory and do not carry the force of law. On filings, they say a lawyer “must review all such outputs for accuracy and correctness, verify citations and statements of fact or law” before submitting work produced with a generative AI tool.
California’s disclosure duty came from the legislature
California is the exception, and its duty does not come from a court rule. The Governor approved SB 574 on September 30, 2026. It was chaptered the same day as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026. With no operative-date clause, it takes effect January 1, 2027. A new Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 requires an attorney who uses generative AI in the practice of law to “[d]isclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to the court for all documents submitted to the court,” and to take reasonable steps to verify AI output, “including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations.” An amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 adds that a paper filed in any court “shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.” The chaptered text was not yet posted when this was written; the quotations are from the enrolled bill. The California state page lists the statute with the state’s other legislation and court rules on AI in legal practice.
The duty runs to attorneys, and it is a statutory duty of an attorney, not a filing rule a court adopted. For a firm, the practical point is the same either way: from January 2027, California filings carry a disclosure obligation that none of the statewide court rules in the tracker imposes.
Rules for the courts themselves
Some statewide instruments govern judges and court staff rather than filers. The Iowa Supreme Court’s chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules (tracker entry) was adopted July 21, 2026 and takes effect January 1, 2027. It provides that “[a] judicial officer or an adjudicative assistant must independently verify the accuracy of all factual or legal sources in any work product prepared by an artificial intelligence tool,” and limits judicial use of case information to approved tools. Instruments like this one impose nothing on filers, but they show how a court system expects AI output to be checked, which is the standard a filer’s own work will be read against.
What this means for a filing checklist
Firms that keep an AI compliance checklist for court filings may wish to consider:
- Starting with the statewide rule. In Connecticut, Florida, and Indiana a filer’s signature now carries a representation about citations. In Florida, the statewide rule also displaces local AI disclosure and certification orders.
- Checking court by court where the state leaves it to courts. In New York, whether the Appendix A certification applies depends on whether the court adopted it.
- Treating verification as the common denominator. Each filer-facing rule and notice above that imposes or recommends a duty asks for citations to be checked against real sources. The technology-neutral rules apply that duty whether or not AI was used.
- Planning for California’s 2027 disclosure duty separately. It is the only statewide disclosure requirement described here, and it applies to attorneys by statute.
Individual judges’ standing orders still apply on top of these rules, except where a state has displaced them. The court orders tracker lists both. How any of these provisions applies to a particular filing is a question for counsel licensed in that jurisdiction.