Posey v. Bushnell
Supreme Court of Idaho · Idaho Sup. Ct. · Idaho bar guidance
Conduct
Here a pro se appellant's briefs had fabricated quotations and nonexistent cases; only six of twenty-two quotations were accurate, and the Court suspected generative AI.
Consequence
The Court refused to consider nine of ten issues and affirmed a $1,176,000 defamation judgment, but expressly imposed no sanction under I.A.R. 11.2.
Lesson
Here the Court said AI use does not excuse briefing inaccuracies by attorneys or self-represented litigants, and held that fake quotations and non-existent cases are not adequate authority.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Posey v. Bushnell, No. 52072 (Idaho Sept. 22, 2026) (Bevan, C.J.)
- Decided
- September 22, 2026
Summary
Eric Posey sued Summer Bushnell, a local internet blogger, for defamation over social-media posts claiming he exposed his genitals during a June 2022 drag performance at Coeur d'Alene City Park; a jury awarded $926,000 in compensatory and $250,000 in punitive damages. Representing herself, Bushnell appealed, alleging ten errors. The Court found that of the twenty-two purported quotations she attributed to caselaw, statutes, court rules, pattern jury instructions, and the Idaho Constitution, "only six are accurate quotations with some minor spelling errors." She cited "Jones v. Lynn, 155 Idaho 439, 445 (2013)" on voir dire error; the Court said "No such decision exists," the only Idaho Jones v. Lynn being a 2021 summary-judgment appeal. It called two other cited cases, McAdam v. McAdam and Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Hawkins, nonexistent. The Court said the nature and extent of the errors "suggest that she may have relied on generative artificial intelligence" and concluded the authorities "were not subjected to meaningful verification." It ordered supplemental briefing on why the appeal should not be dismissed as a sanction. Bushnell apologized, said the inaccuracies were inadvertent, and maintained she did not rely on GenAI; the Court accepted the inadvertence representations but said her briefing and the record "raise serious doubt" as to the AI denial.
- AI tool:
- Suspected, not found (the Court said the errors "suggest that she may have relied on generative artificial intelligence"; Bushnell maintained she did not, and the Court said her briefing and the record "raise serious doubt as to that assertion")
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In an opinion by Chief Justice Bevan, the Court declined to consider issues one through nine, some for lack of adequate argument and authority (including arguments that "depend on fabricated or misrepresented authority"), some for misstating the record, and some as unpreserved. It said those dismissals "are not sanctions under Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2," and it declined Posey's request to dismiss the appeal outright. The Court held it had authority under I.A.R. 11.2 to sanction the briefing but declined to award attorney fees sua sponte (Posey had requested none) and found an additional monetary sanction unnecessary, citing the dismissed issues and the $1,176,000 judgment, plus post-judgment interest, Bushnell already faced: "while Bushnell's conduct could warrant sanctions under Rule 11.2, we exercise our discretion to impose no sanction in this appeal." On the one remaining issue, Posey's status as a limited-purpose public figure, the Court held any error harmless because the jury found actual malice. It affirmed the judgment in full and awarded Posey costs. Justices Brody, Moeller, Zahn, and Monson (J. Pro Tem) concurred.
Why does Posey v. Bushnell matter for law firms using AI?
Posey v. Bushnell is an Idaho Supreme Court opinion that used a pro se defamation appeal to state the Court’s position on generative AI in briefing. At the outset the Court said it would “address the risks associated with reliance on generative artificial intelligence and to make clear that such reliance is fraught with potential peril,” and that “the use of artificial intelligence does not excuse inaccuracies in briefing, whether it be used by attorneys or self-represented litigants.” Its treatment of the defective authorities was categorical: “Fake quotations, errant citations, and non-existent cases do not constitute adequate authority,” and “fabricated authority is more troubling than the absence of authority because it introduces false information into the judicial process.”
The Court did not find that Bushnell used AI. It said the nature and extent of the errors “suggest that she may have relied on generative artificial intelligence,” recorded her denial, and said her briefing and the record “raise serious doubt as to that assertion,” before concluding that “the origin of these deficiencies is less concerning than the burdens they impose on this Court.” It ordered supplemental briefing on whether to dismiss the appeal as a sanction, accepted her representation that the errors were inadvertent, and in the end imposed no sanction. The consequence came through ordinary appellate standards instead: the Court refused to reach nine of her ten issues, and it said expressly that those dismissals are not sanctions under I.A.R. 11.2.
For firms, the opinion is a statement from a state supreme court that the verification duty is the same for lawyers and self-represented litigants and that the Court regards itself as having “ample authority to sanction a litigant for submitting briefing containing the type of pervasive inaccuracies and misrepresentations present here.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the Court declined a monetary sanction for reasons specific to the case (no fee request, the dismissed issues, and a large existing judgment), and said its decision “should not be understood as minimizing the seriousness of Bushnell’s conduct.”
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 every quotation against its source before filing. Here the Court counted the purported quotations in the briefs and found only six of twenty-two accurate, and it treated arguments resting on fabricated or misrepresented authority as unsupported.
- Review the Court's statement that fabricated authority is "more troubling than the absence of authority because it introduces false information into the judicial process" when assessing the downside of an unchecked citation.
- Review how the Court treated the source of the errors. It said her briefing and the record "raise serious doubt" about her denial of GenAI use, then added: "Regardless, the origin of these deficiencies is less concerning than the burdens they impose on this Court."
- Consider that the Court held it has ample authority under I.A.R. 11.2 to sanction this kind of briefing and declined to exercise it here, citing the absence of a fee request, the dismissed issues, and the existing judgment.