Montoya Cabanas v. Bondi
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division · S.D. Tex. · Texas bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Montoya Cabanas v. Bondi, No. 4:25-cv-04830, 2025 WL 3171331 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2025)
- Decided
- November 13, 2025
Summary
Felix Alberto Montanez of Preferential Option Law Offices, LLC, representing petitioner in a habeas challenge to immigration detention, filed a response brief that cited three cases the Government had not actually cited and that contained substantively inaccurate quotations and characterizations of case law, including a putative quote from a conference report on Section 302 of the immigration laws that, "upon close check, for whatever reason," did not appear in the cited report. Judge Charles Eskridge flagged the abnormalities in the order's conclusion, observing they "may be related to the use of artificial intelligence products."
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction. The court denied the habeas petition on the merits and cautioned counsel "to ensure that all citations are checked and all arguments are properly supported prior to filing."
Why does Montoya Cabanas v. Bondi matter for law firms using AI?
Cabanas illustrates a softer end of the judicial response spectrum: where AI-related citation defects appear in a losing brief but did not affect the outcome, some judges issue a warning rather than formal sanctions. The order is also a useful reminder that hallucinations are not limited to fabricated case names. Misquoted legislative history and invented citations attributed to opposing counsel are equally exposed by the most basic verification step a partner can require: pull the source and read the quoted line.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.