Guerra Quezada v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 5th Cir. · Louisiana bar guidance , Mississippi bar guidance , Texas bar guidance
Conduct
Here counsel's briefs had a quotation the court could not find in any opinion, a phrase absent from the cited case, a wrong circuit, and a dissent misattributed to Afroyim v. Rusk.
Consequence
No sanction. The panel cited FRAP 28 and 46(c), said it "takes no action now," and told counsel to "take this obligation seriously in the future"; the due process claims were forfeited.
Lesson
Here the cost fell on the clients' arguments: the panel held due process claims forfeited in briefing whose case citations it called "systematically defective."
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Guerra Quezada v. United States, No. 25-10372, consolidated with No. 25-10555 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026) (Southwick, J.)
- Decided
- August 14, 2026
Summary
An uncle and nephew born in Mexico, Manuel Salvador Guerra Vasquez and Jorge Antonio Guerra Quezada, sued the United States and immigration officials claiming citizenship through a U.S.-born ancestor. The district court dismissed their claims, and the Fifth Circuit heard the consolidated appeals. In a numbered part of the opinion headed by the observation that "the briefs filed in both cases by Appellants' counsel contain significant inaccuracies," the panel identified a series of problems. Both briefs quoted Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922), for a sentence the court's research "has failed to locate [...] in Ng Fung Ho or in any other opinion," and both attributed to Ng Fung Ho the phrase "[i]t is wrong to deport a United States citizen," which "does not appear in the opinion." Guerra Vasquez's opening brief also misquoted the Ng Fung Ho majority in a parenthetical. Both opening briefs cited Doe v. McAleenan as a Fourth Circuit opinion, although it is a Seventh Circuit decision "that starts on a different page of the Federal Third Reporter," and counsel attributed to Afroyim v. Rusk a quotation that comes from Chief Justice Warren's dissent in Perez v. Brownell. Guerra Quezada's brief also contained no record citations. The opinion does not name counsel.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion flags a quotation the court could not locate in any opinion and several misattributed authorities but does not mention AI)
What did the court warn about?
The panel imposed no sanction. It noted that Fed. R. App. P. 28 requires arguments supported by "citations to the authorities," "disallowing citation to nonexistent or fabricated cases," and that under Fed. R. App. P. 46(c) a court of appeals may discipline an attorney "for failure to comply with any court rule." It then stated: "The court takes no action now for the foregoing deficiencies, but counsel must take this obligation seriously in the future." Separately, the panel held the due process claims forfeited because they were inadequately briefed, noting that "the case citations in the briefing are systematically defective." On the merits, the panel rejected the constructive-presence doctrine, held that Section 1252(g) barred the damages claims, found no jurisdiction over the Section 1503(a) declaratory claims for failure to exhaust or over the APA claims for lack of final agency action, and held there was no jurisdiction over Guerra Vasquez's habeas claim because he is not "in custody." It affirmed the dismissal without prejudice in Guerra Quezada's case and, in Guerra Vasquez's case, affirmed the dismissal but modified the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice. Judge Ho concurred separately on the citizenship question and did not address the briefing.
Why does Guerra Quezada v. United States matter for law firms using AI?
Guerra Quezada v. United States is primarily a citizenship decision: the Fifth Circuit rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ constructive-presence doctrine in the citizenship-transmission context and affirmed the dismissal of both appellants’ claims. The briefing discussion comes near the end of Judge Southwick’s opinion, introduced with the statement that “[t]roubling to the court is the fact that the briefs filed in both cases by Appellants’ counsel contain significant inaccuracies.”
The defects the panel catalogued are the misquotation and misattribution kind rather than invented case names. The court could not locate a quoted Ng Fung Ho sentence “in Ng Fung Ho or in any other opinion”; a second phrase attributed to Ng Fung Ho “does not appear in the opinion”; Doe v. McAleenan was cited to the wrong circuit and page; and a quotation credited to Afroyim v. Rusk “really comes from a dissent” in Perez v. Brownell. The opinion does not say how these errors arose and does not mention artificial intelligence. The panel cited Fed. R. App. P. 28, which it described as “disallowing citation to nonexistent or fabricated cases,” and the court’s disciplinary power under Rule 46(c), then declined to act: “The court takes no action now for the foregoing deficiencies, but counsel must take this obligation seriously in the future.”
The practical consequence here fell on the arguments rather than the lawyer. Earlier in the same opinion the panel held the due process claims forfeited because they were “completely unsubstantiated by citations to the record, and the case citations in the briefing are systematically defective.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, citation quality affected both whether the court reached an argument and how it addressed counsel.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify quotations against the cited opinion itself. The panel's research could not locate one quoted sentence in Ng Fung Ho or any other opinion.
- Review court, reporter page, and opinion type for each citation. Here a Seventh Circuit case was cited as Fourth Circuit, and a dissent in Perez v. Brownell was presented as language from Afroyim v. Rusk.
- Document record citations for every factual assertion. The panel noted that Guerra Quezada's brief was "devoid of record citations" under FRAP 28(a)(8)(A) and 5th Cir. R. 28.2.2.
- Consider that a warning can accompany a merits loss. The panel treated the due process claims as forfeited for inadequate briefing in the same opinion that cautioned counsel.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the opinion does not mention artificial intelligence. The Charlotin tracker records the AI tool as "Implied"; that attribution is a tracker inference.
- The opinion does not use the word "fabricated" for any specific citation in these briefs; it reports that one quotation could not be located in any opinion and that other authorities were misquoted or misattributed. It mentions "nonexistent or fabricated cases" only in describing what Rule 28 disallows.
- Appellants' counsel is not named in the opinion; the attorney's identity is unverified.