Student Doe v. Noem

What did the court warn about?

On July 10, 2025, Judge Mehta entered a minute order vacating the order to show cause. The court wrote that it "appreciates and credits counsel's candid and contrite response" and "therefore will not impose any sanctions." It then admonished counsel: "The court, however, admonishes counsel about her use of AI technology in the future when drafting briefs. That technology is no substitute for counsel's own diligence." The order attached one forward-looking condition: "If counsel commits a similar error in the future before another judge, she shall notify that court about these proceedings, so as to enable an informed decision on possible sanctions." No fine, fee award, or referral was ordered. The plaintiff had filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 30, 2025, the day before the show-cause order issued, so the court addressed the citation after that filing. Both the show-cause order and the order vacating it are docket-text minute orders with no separate written opinion.

Why does Student Doe v. Noem matter for law firms using AI?

The court acted on the citation after the plaintiff had filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 30, 2025; on July 1 Judge Mehta ordered counsel to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for citing “Moms Against Poverty v. Department of State, 2022 WL 17951329 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2022),” which the court called “a seemingly non-existent authority.” The citation purported to be a decision of the same court, and the court reported checking both Westlaw and its own electronic docketing system without finding it. The show-cause order did not mention artificial intelligence.

Counsel’s response supplied the explanation. She wrote that she had “used ChatGPT to assist with initial research and the framing of the issues presented,” that the output was meant only as a starting point, and that she “failed to verify the accuracy” of the citation, which she called “a non-existent case.” She noted that she had also cited Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council for the same preliminary-injunction standard and asked the court to refrain from a public sanction. The court accepted that account. Its July 10 minute order credited the response as “candid and contrite” and declined to impose any sanction.

The court nonetheless did two things beyond vacating the order. It admonished counsel “about her use of AI technology in the future when drafting briefs,” stating that “[t]hat technology is no substitute for counsel’s own diligence.” And it imposed a condition that reaches beyond this case: if counsel commits a similar error before another judge, she must notify that court of these proceedings “so as to enable an informed decision on possible sanctions.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the court treated an acknowledged citation to a non-existent case as warranting an admonition rather than a sanction, while ensuring that any repeat would be evaluated with this history in view.