Federal and State Court Orders on AI
Federal and state judges are issuing standing orders requiring attorneys to disclose AI use, certify the accuracy of AI-generated content, or both. This tracker covers 113 active orders binding attorney filings, each linked to the court's primary source. Orders binding only court personnel (e.g., California Rule of Court 10.430) are excluded.
Requirements vary significantly by judge and jurisdiction. Some courts require disclosure plus certification; others impose a Rule 11 caution; a few prohibit AI use in filings entirely. Check before filing in any unfamiliar court.
For the chronological view across all three trackers and federal AI guidance, see the AI legal regulation timeline.
+6 nationwide orders bind every state and don't show on the map (EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-40 (OOD): Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in EOIR Proceedings , Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Kelly) , Order on Artificial Intelligence (Cases Assigned to Judge Restani) , +3 more).
About the map
The map highlights the strictest order binding each state. Color encodes severity; the count and breakdown appear in the tooltip. Nationwide tribunals (USPTO, JPML, EOIR, Tax Court) are tracked in the count and breakdown but excluded from the color so they don't wash out the per-state signal. On smaller states (RI, CT, DE, DC), use the "Choose state" picker below the map or keyboard arrow navigation from a focused neighbor. The map satisfies WCAG 2.5.8 via the picker (44 px+ touch targets for every state) and the keyboard adjacency map.
What do these filters mean?
- Requires disclosure
- Order requires affirmative disclosure that AI was used in the filing.
- Requires verification
- Order requires counsel to certify that AI-generated content (citations, quotations) was independently verified before filing.
- Cautions on use
- Order does not impose certification but warns of Rule 11 or analogous consequences for unverified AI content.
- Prohibits use
- Order prohibits AI use in filings outright, with or without exceptions.
- Applies to research
- Order's scope expressly includes AI-assisted legal research, not only drafting or summarization.
- Consequences: attorneys
- Order specifies sanctions, fees, or duties imposed on counsel personally (e.g., disclosure to opposing counsel, mandatory CLE, monetary sanctions).
- Consequences: parties
- Order specifies consequences imposed on the represented party (e.g., dismissal, adverse inference, evidentiary rulings).
Showing 113 of 113 orders.
Federal Courts of Appeals (1)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopted by the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice) | Jun 2024 | active | The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a special rule regarding the use of AI in drafting briefs at this time. | Apr 2026 |
Federal District Courts (57)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nina Y. Wang, U.S. District Judge | D. Colo. | Apr 2026 | active | The District of Colorado's Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings applies to all litigants appearing before the court, including pro se plaintiffs. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Rita F. Lin | N.D. Cal. | Mar 2026 | active | Use of generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means. | Apr 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros | N.D. Cal. | Feb 2026 | active | AI use is not categorically prohibited. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Steven D. Grimberg | N.D. Ga. | Feb 2026 | active | Section V.c of Judge Grimberg's civil standing order (under Section V, Trial) addresses artificial intelligence in a single paragraph and does not require disclosure or certification. | May 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen | N.D. Cal. | Feb 2026 | active | The signature of counsel or a self-represented party on any submission containing AI-generated content, including AI-generated citations, constitutes a certification that the signing attorney has personally verified the content's accuracy. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. | C.D. Cal. | Jan 2026 | active | Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration disclosing the AI use. | May 2026 |
| Judge Dale E. Ho | S.D.N.Y. | Jan 2026 | active | Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of AI. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D. Nev. | Jan 2026 | active | Counsel or pro se party may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Standing Order, and any other applicable legal or ethical obligations. | May 2026 |
| Judge S. Kato Crews | D. Colo. | Jan 2026 | active | Every substantive motion, including but not necessarily limited to motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 56, and 65, and the corresponding response and reply, shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Maritza Dominguez Braswell | D. Colo. | Dec 2025 | active | Document is styled as 'guidance,' not a strict standing order, and does not impose a new pre-filing certification requirement. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Nina Y. Wang | D. Colo. | Dec 2025 | active | Every filing must contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Eastern District of Texas (district-wide local rule amendment) | E.D. Tex. | Dec 2025 | active | All litigants are responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative AI. | Apr 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim | E.D. Cal. | Nov 2025 | active | Virtual backgrounds, avatars, digital twins, or the use of any tool or AI to alter an individual's appearance or voice are prohibited in virtual proceedings. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Vernon S. Broderick | S.D.N.Y. | Oct 2025 | active | Any party (pro se or counseled) who utilizes any generative AI tool in preparing documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge John P. Cronan | S.D.N.Y. | Oct 2025 | active | All litigants are responsible for verifying the accuracy of any output produced in whole or in part by an AI tool. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Margaret I. Strickland | D.N.M. | Sep 2025 | active | Any party, whether pro se or counseled, who uses any generative AI tool in preparing documents to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and identify the specific tool used. | Apr 2026 |
| Issued by Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk of Court | D. Conn. | Sep 2025 | active | All parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Anne Hwang | C.D. Cal. | Sep 2025 | active | Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration disclosing the AI use. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by all N.D. Tex. judges (Local Civil Rule) | N.D. Tex. | Sep 2025 | active | A brief prepared using generative AI must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading 'Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.' | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Eumi K. Lee | N.D. Cal. | Aug 2025 | active | Use of ChatGPT or other generative AI is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Michael J. Newman | S.D. Ohio | Aug 2025 | active | No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. | Apr 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang | N.D. Cal. | Jul 2025 | active | Any brief or pleading drafted with any AI tool must be identified as such in its title or pleading caption, in a table preceding the body text, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Fernando M. Olguin | C.D. Cal. | Jul 2025 | active | Use of any AI tool (broader than 'generative') in the preparation of any filing triggers an automatic certification. | May 2026 |
| Judge John A. Kazen | S.D. Tex. (Laredo Division) | Jun 2025 | active | Attorneys and self-represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared with the assistance of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or similar tools) is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission. | May 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella | M.D. Pa. | Jun 2025 | active | Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document filed in any matter pending before Judge Latella must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI. | May 2026 |
| Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales | D.N.M. | May 2025 | active | I find it necessary to remind all litigants that appear in this Court of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that the legal contentions in papers they sign and file with the Court are warranted by existing law. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Randy Crane | S.D. Tex. | May 2025 | active | Attorneys and self-represented litigants are cautioned against submitting any pleading, motion, or other paper drafted using generative AI without checking the submission for accuracy. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Tiffany R. Johnson | N.D. Ga. | Mar 2025 | active | All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court. | May 2026 |
| Judge Kai N. Scott | E.D. Pa. | Mar 2025 | active | Applies when generative AI is used in a citation of any legal authority filed with the Court. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Michael A. Hammer, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D.N.J. | Jan 2025 | active | Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only (AEO) material may only be used in an AI tool if the receiving party first confirms in writing to the producing party that the AI tool meets all the order's compliance pathways. | May 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo | M.D. Pa. | Jan 2025 | active | Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document filed in any matter pending before Judge Caraballo must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI. | May 2026 |
| Judge Trina L. Thompson | N.D. Cal. | Jan 2025 | active | AI use is not prohibited; counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any AI-assisted work product. | Apr 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst | E.D.N.Y. | Jan 2025 | active | Parties are cautioned that any use of AI resources in connection with submissions to the Court must comply with their professional obligations to the Court. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger, Senior U.S. District Judge | M.D. Fla. | Dec 2024 | active | Reasonableness inquiry under Rule 11(b)(2) is not satisfied by mere reliance on generative AI; signing a filing constitutes certification of the matters in Rule 11. | May 2026 |
| Court (en banc local rule amendment) | D. Neb. | Dec 2024 | active | All parties are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of their legal briefing, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence programs drafted any portion of that filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Karoline Mehalchick | M.D. Pa. | Nov 2024 | active | Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document filed in any matter pending before Judge Mehalchick must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Susan Prose, U.S. Magistrate Judge | D. Colo. | Oct 2024 | active | In addition to a Certification of Conferral, in cases where parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, every motion filed under FRCP 12, FRCP 56, or to amend a pleading, and any opposed motion (including the corresponding response and reply), shall contain a Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing, including any proposed amended pleadings. | May 2026 |
| Judge Fred W. Slaughter | C.D. Cal. | Sep 2024 | active | Any party who uses generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach a separate declaration disclosing the AI use. | May 2026 |
| Judge Todd W. Robinson | S.D. Cal. | Sep 2024 | active | Acknowledges that generative AI tools may produce filings 'replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law' if used without verification. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Erin K. Lee, U.S. Magistrate Judge | N.D. Cal. | Aug 2024 | active | Use of ChatGPT or other generative AI tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm the accuracy of any research conducted by these means. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Madeline Hughes Haikala | N.D. Ala. | Jul 2024 | active | Lawyers and pro se litigants who use technology like ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or other generative AI services to prepare documents that the parties file in the record are cautioned that generative AI technologies sometimes may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. | May 2026 |
| Chief Judge Martin Reidinger | W.D.N.C. | Jun 2024 | active | Every brief or memorandum filed must include a certification stating that no artificial intelligence was employed in doing the research for the preparation of the document, with the exception of AI embedded in the standard online legal research sources Westlaw, Lexis, FastCase, and Bloomberg. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge | E.D. Pa. | May 2024 | active | Anyone (counsel or pro se litigant) using generative AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper or in serving discovery must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). | May 2026 |
| Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | N.D. Ill. | Apr 2024 | active | Parties may not use Artificial Intelligence to draft their memoranda. | May 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay | E.D.N.Y. | Jan 2024 | active | Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any attorney or pro se party who has used AI in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must disclose that AI has been used. | May 2026 |
| Judge Iain D. Johnston | N.D. Ill. | Dec 2023 | active | Anyone (counsel and unrepresented parties alike) using AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or in serving discovery must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). | May 2026 |
| Judge Christopher A. Boyko | N.D. Ohio | Dec 2023 | active | No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | N.D. Tex. (Amarillo Division) | Nov 2023 | active | Attorneys and pro se litigants must file a certificate together with their notice of appearance attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language (including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis) will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a human being. | May 2026 |
| Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín | N.D. Cal. | Nov 2023 | active | Counsel must provide complete and accurate representations in any submission, consistent with Rule 11 and the California Rules of Professional Conduct. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Derrick K. Watson; Judges J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi, and Jill A. Otake | D. Haw. | Nov 2023 | active | Briefs and memoranda generated by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms (for example, ChatGPT or Bard) and online briefs or memoranda drafted by persons compensated to produce materials not tailored to specific cases are collectively defined as 'unverified sources.' | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Evelyn Padin | D.N.J. | Nov 2023 | active | Use of any GAI (e.g., OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's Bard) in any court filings requires a mandatory disclosure and certification. | May 2026 |
| Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap | E.D. Tex. | Oct 2023 | amended | Local Civil Rule CV-11(g) (Use of Technology by Pro Se Litigants): Pro se litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services). | May 2026 |
| Chief Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi | D. Haw. | Sep 2023 | active | Any party, whether pro se or counseled, who uses any generative AI tool in preparing documents to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and identify the specific tool used. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Jason A. Robertson, U.S. Magistrate Judge | E.D. Okla. | Sep 2023 | active | Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used. | May 2026 |
| Judge Scott L. Palk | W.D. Okla. | Jul 2023 | active | Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used. | Apr 2026 |
| Magistrate Judge Jeffrey N. Cole | N.D. Ill. | Jul 2023 | active | Any party using AI in the preparation of materials submitted to the court must disclose in the filing that an AI tool was used to conduct legal research and/or was used in any way in the preparation of the submitted document. | May 2026 |
| Judge Michael M. Baylson | E.D. Pa. | Jun 2023 | active | If any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, they must disclose in a clear and plain factual statement that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing. | Apr 2026 |
Federal Bankruptcy Courts (4)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Judge Christopher B. Latham and Judge J. Barrett Marum | S.D. Cal. (Bankruptcy) | Jan 2026 | active | Effective January 1, 2026, any pleading, motion, or paper (whether moving, opposing, or in reply) that the filer prepared in any aspect by using a generative AI program must be accompanied by an attestation or certification signed by the filer. | Apr 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court (district-wide local rule) | S.D.N.Y. (Bankruptcy) | Sep 2024 | active | Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of technology, including generative AI services such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing AI Chat. | Apr 2026 |
| Issued by the Court (district-wide General Order) | W.D. Okla. Bankr. | Sep 2023 | active | Any document filed with the Court that has been drafted utilizing a generative AI program (including but not limited to ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) must be accompanied by an attestation. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Northern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court (district-wide general order) | N.D. Tex. (Bankruptcy) | Jun 2023 | active | If any portion of a pleading or other paper filed on the Court's docket has been drafted utilizing generative AI (including ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard), all attorneys and pro se litigants filing such papers must verify that any AI-generated language was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means. | Apr 2026 |
Federal Specialty Courts (5)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sirce E. Owen, Acting Director (signed by digital signature, August 8, 2025) | EOIR (Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals; nationwide) | Aug 2025 | active | EOIR has neither a blanket prohibition on the use of generative AI in its proceedings nor a mandatory disclosure requirement regarding its use. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Claire R. Kelly | U.S. Court of International Trade | Jul 2025 | active | Applies to any submission containing text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program on the basis of natural language prompts (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard). | May 2026 |
| Senior Judge Jane A. Restani | U.S. Court of International Trade | Jul 2025 | active | Applies to any submission containing text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program on the basis of natural language prompts (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard). | May 2026 |
| Issued by the USPTO (Director Kathi Vidal) | USPTO (PTAB, TTAB, and patent/trademark practice) | Apr 2024 | active | Practitioners must review AI-drafted submissions and verify factual and legal accuracy under 37 CFR 11.18(b), which governs every paper filed at the USPTO. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden | U.S. Court of International Trade | Jun 2023 | active | Any submission in a case assigned to Judge Vaden that contains text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program (including but not limited to ChatGPT and Google Bard) must include a disclosure notice identifying the program used and the specific portions of text so drafted. | Apr 2026 |
State Courts (46)
| Judge / Issuing Body | Jurisdiction | Date | Status | Key Requirement | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopted by the Chief Administrator of the Courts (Administrative Order 75) | New York (statewide, all UCS civil and criminal courts) | Jun 2026 | active | Use of AI tools by attorneys and parties in preparing court papers should not be prohibited as long as use is consistent with existing duties and responsibilities for submissions. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Glenn D. Kelley | FL 15th Circuit (Palm Beach) | Apr 2026 | active | Any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative AI tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court document must disclose such use on the face of the filing. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Melanie Chase | FL 18th Circuit (Brevard, Seminole) | Feb 2026 | active | Attorneys and self-represented litigants must disclose use of generative AI on the face of the filing. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Phillip Gregory | Texas (90th Judicial District: Young and Stephens Counties) | Feb 2026 | active | All self-represented litigants and attorneys who use any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, incorporate and certify using the attached form within each pleading generated using artificial intelligence. | May 2026 |
| Chief U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes | D. Kan. | Jan 2026 | active | 'Litigants are responsible for the content of their own filings and for complying with all applicable procedural rules and duties of candor even when they use AI to generate all or portions of court filings.' | Apr 2026 |
| Court (Family Division) | WI Waukesha County | Jan 2026 | active | Any filing prepared using AI must be independently reviewed to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and proper use of applicable law. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips | FL 17th Circuit (Broward) | Jan 2026 | active | When AI has been used in preparation, research, drafting of pleadings, drafting of documents, filing of documents, and/or discovery requests, the document must identify the specific AI tool used. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge William H. Burgess, III | FL 6th Circuit (Pinellas), Family Court Section 22 only | Jan 2026 | active | Mandatory disclosure when AI is used for legal research reflected in text, drafting any portion, or summarizing legal sources or facts; the filing must include a 'Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use' identifying each tool by name (e.g., ChatGPT, Lexis+ AI, Westlaw AI), describing manner of use, stating whether AI text appears directly in the document, and affirming no confidential or privileged information was inputted. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan | FL 11th Circuit (Miami-Dade) | Jan 2026 | active | Any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative AI tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record must disclose such use on the face of the filing. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Thomas Pardy | MT 13th Judicial District (Yellowstone County) | Jan 2026 | active | 'If an attorney for a party or a self-represented party has used generative Artificial Intelligence (hereafter "AI") in the preparation of any document filed with the 13th Judicial District Court, they MUST, identify the type of AI used and CERTIFY every citation to the law or record in the filing has been verified as accurate.' | Apr 2026 |
| Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Martin (Marty) McGee | Cabarrus County, NC | Dec 2025 | active | No disclosure required for AI use in drafting pleadings and advocacy-related documents that are not used as evidence. | Apr 2026 |
| Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (panel) | Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 2025 | active | Attorneys must verify every citation before filing; Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (Pennsylvania Bar Association / Philadelphia Bar Association) requires verification of AI-generated citations. | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Judge Charles A. Schwab | FL 19th Circuit (Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie) | Dec 2025 | active | Any filing drafted in whole or in part with the assistance of AI technology must contain a clear disclosure on the face of the document specifying AI technology was used (e.g., drafting, editing, citing, cite-checking). | Apr 2026 |
| Court | MT 4th Judicial District (Missoula and Mineral Counties) | Oct 2025 | active | 'Any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who uses generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of a pleading or document filed with the court must disclose the use of "generative artificial intelligence": the specific tool the party used; how the party used the tool in preparing the relevant document; and that the party certifies they have checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool, including all factual and procedural background, citations, and legal authority.' | Apr 2026 |
| Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas | New York (statewide unified court system) | Oct 2025 | active | UCS users may use only those generative AI products that have been approved by the UCS Division of Technology and Court Research (DoTCR), which are identified in the attached Appendix. | Apr 2026 |
| Court (per curiam, AI Advisory Committee) | PA (statewide judicial branch) | Sep 2025 | active | This Policy applies to Personnel using GenAI on UJS Technology Resources. The purpose of this Policy is to promote and ensure the safe and appropriate use of GenAI by Personnel. | Apr 2026 |
| Adopted by the Judicial Council of California (effective Sept. 1, 2025; court-adoption deadline Dec. 15, 2025) | Cal. (statewide) | Sep 2025 | active | Each California superior, appellate, and supreme court must adopt a written generative-AI use policy by December 15, 2025, or prohibit the use of generative AI. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by the Judicial Council of California (effective Sept. 1, 2025) | Cal. (statewide) | Sep 2025 | active | Judicial officers should not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information (SSNs, dates of birth, addresses, medical information, sealed documents) into a public generative AI system. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Craig L. Schwall, Sr. | Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct. (Ga.) | Jul 2025 | active | Order applies to all briefs, proposed orders, and other written submissions filed in the Court's criminal and civil dockets in Judge Schwall's division, and to all attorneys and to all parties proceeding without counsel (pro se litigants). | May 2026 |
| Chief U.S. District Judge Scott W. Skavdahl | D. Wyo. | May 2025 | active | The order reminds 'all litigants that appear in this court, represented or pro se, of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 requires legal contentions in documents filed with a court be warranted by existing law.' | Apr 2026 |
| Adopted by Chief Judge Jack Tuter (signed 2025-04-08; exhibits filed 2025-04-15) | Fla. Cir. (17th JC, Broward Cnty.) | Apr 2025 | active | If any attorney or pro se party submits a filing or submission containing AI-generated content, the attorney or pro se party must disclose the use of artificial intelligence on the face of the document. | May 2026 |
| Chief Justice John W. Kittredge | South Carolina (statewide judicial branch) | Mar 2025 | active | Judicial Branch Officers and Employees may only use Generative AI tools and systems in the performance of their Judicial Branch duties that are approved by the Supreme Court or South Carolina Court Administration. | Apr 2026 |
| Judge Carson Campbell (21st District) and Judge John D. Winkelmann (335th District) | Texas (21st and 335th Judicial Districts: Burleson, Lee, and Washington Counties) | Mar 2025 | active | All attorneys and self-represented litigants who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form certifying compliance. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by the judges of the Business Court of Texas (Bouressa, Whitehill, Andrews, Sweeten, Barnard, Sharp, Bullard, Stagner, Adrogué; Dorfman as Administrative Presiding Judge) | Texas (statewide, Business Court only) | Mar 2025 | active | Use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Michael J. Norris, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Niagara Cnty.) | Feb 2025 | active | Any party who uses a generative AI tool in preparation of any documents filed with the court must disclose the use of AI. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court on recommendation of the Judicial Conference Task Force on AI | Illinois (statewide) | Jan 2025 | active | AI use 'may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards.' | Apr 2026 |
| Judge John L. Pool | Texas (109th Judicial District: Andrews, Winkler, and Crane Counties) | Dec 2024 | active | All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Tandra L. Dawson, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (N.Y. Cnty.) | Dec 2024 | active | If AI is used to prepare any document submitted for filing with the court that involves substantive legal research and writing (such as a legal memorandum, summation, etc.), counsel or a pro se litigant shall submit an affirmation at the end of the document stating that AI, such as ChatGPT, was used in preparation of the document. | May 2026 |
| Chief Judge Michael J. Chmiel | IL 22nd Circuit (McHenry County) | Oct 2024 | active | Participants and professionals in cases in this Circuit shall consider the admonitions in the order and engage AI carefully, especially with regard to the rules that govern AI use directly and indirectly. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Jane H. Ayoubi, Administrative Law Judge | FTC ALJ | Sep 2024 | active | Each motion, opposition, reply, or other paper filed with the FTC ALJ must be accompanied by a certification under one of two attestations: either (1) no portion of the filing was drafted by generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini), or (2) any language in the filing that was drafted by generative AI was checked for accuracy by human attorneys or paralegals using printed legal reporters and/or online legal databases. | May 2026 |
| Judge Roy B. Ferguson | Texas (394th Judicial District: Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, and Presidio Counties) | Aug 2024 | active | All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form, certifying compliance. | May 2026 |
| Court | MO 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County) | Jul 2024 | active | 'Any person who submits a pleading or filing with the Court using any generative artificial intelligence (A.I.) tool to: (a) conduct the legal research referenced in the pleading; or (b) to draft a pleading or documents, must disclose to the Court that A.I. was used.' | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Aaron D. Maslow, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Kings Cnty.) | Jul 2024 | active | All submissions on a motion must include a certification either that no generative AI was used in drafting any affidavit, affirmation, or memorandum of law, or that AI was used but all generated text (including citations, quotations, and legal analysis) was reviewed for accuracy and approved by an attorney or pro se party. | May 2026 |
| Court | KS 3rd Judicial District (Shawnee County) | Jun 2024 | active | Filers using generative AI must 'verify that any language, materials or content that was generated was checked for accuracy, using print reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.' | Apr 2026 |
| Adopted en banc by the judges of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas | Hamilton County, Ohio (county-wide common pleas, including Commercial Docket) | May 2024 | active | Attorneys and parties must disclose the use of AI-assisted technology in the creation or editing of any document or evidence submitted to the court. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Cecilia A. Horan | Cook County, Ill. (Chancery) | Apr 2024 | active | Any use of large language model artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT) in the preparation of briefs or other submissions must be indicated in the caption of the motion, brief, or other filing. | May 2026 |
| Judge Charles Barnard | Texas (89th Judicial District: Wichita County) | Mar 2024 | active | All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form as an attachment to each pleading generated using AI. | May 2026 |
| Judge Jeff McKnight | Texas (30th Judicial District: Wichita County) | Mar 2024 | active | All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form as an attachment to each pleading generated using AI. | May 2026 |
| Judge Meredith Kennedy | Texas (78th Judicial District: Wichita County) | Mar 2024 | active | All self-represented litigants and attorneys who utilize any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting must, before using any AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the attached form as an attachment to each pleading generated using AI. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Gerald V. Cleary III | Cook County, Ill. (Law) | Feb 2024 | active | A party submitting any document, motion, brief or memoranda to the Court must disclose in writing on the submitted document that AI was used in the creation of the document. | May 2026 |
| Hon. Grace M. Hanlon, J.S.C. | N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Chautauqua Cnty.) | Feb 2024 | amended | Effective June 1, 2026, filers must refer to 22 NYCRR Part 161 (and Appendix A) for guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence. | May 2026 |
| Issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts at the direction of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Stuart Rabner) | New Jersey (statewide) | Jan 2024 | active | Lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools before use, consistent with the duty of competence under RPC 1.1. | Apr 2026 |
| Hon. Kimberly A. Knill | Cal. Super. Ct. (Orange Cnty.) | Jan 2024 | active | Any attorney or self-represented party who has used generative AI (including ChatGPT or Google Bard) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with Department C31 MUST disclose that AI has been used. | May 2026 |
| Adopted by the Civil District Judges of Bexar County, Texas | Texas (Bexar County, Civil District Courts only) | Jan 2024 | active | All pleadings shall include a certificate on the form approved by the Civil District Court Judges and available on the Presiding Court website, signed by the attorney. | May 2026 |
| Judge John J. Russo | Cuyahoga County, OH | Jan 2024 | active | I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify that I have read and will comply with all judge-specific requirements for Judge John J. Russo, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. | Apr 2026 |
| Adopted by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer | Idaho OAH | Jan 2023 | active | Hearing Officers, whether in-house or contract, are prohibited from utilizing artificial intelligence and chatbots (including but not limited to ChatGPT) in drafting, finalizing, or otherwise preparing orders to be issued by the Hearing Officer. | May 2026 |
No orders match the current filters.
Every entry is verified against its primary source. Open an entry's page for full citations and verification details.