What does 5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice)'s AI court instrument provide?

This instrument imposes no AI-specific obligation on attorney filings: it is in force but adds no disclosure, verification, or use restriction beyond existing rules, and any duties it restates (Rule 11, professional conduct rules) already apply. It provides: The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a special rule regarding the use of AI in drafting briefs at this time. Parties and counsel are reminded of their duties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(B).

Does this order require attorneys to disclose AI use?

No. This instrument imposes no AI-specific disclosure or verification duty on attorney filings beyond existing rules, though it cautions counsel that Rule 11 or analogous duties apply to unverified AI content; any disclosure or verification it records is a recommendation, a duty of its other addressees, or a restatement of duties that already apply.

What are the consequences for attorneys who violate this order?

This instrument imposes no independent obligation on attorney filings, so it creates no consequences of its own for attorneys; any consequences it mentions arise under the existing rules it restates. See the items listed on this page.

5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice): Fifth Circuit Court De…

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (unsigned court decision) · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

active

Verified September 30, 2026

Citation: Fifth Circuit Court Decision on Proposed Amendment to 5th Cir. R. 32.3: AI in Briefs
Order date: June 2024

Status and scope

No AI-specific filing obligation: in force, but it imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules. It provides: The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a special rule regarding the use of AI in drafting briefs at this time.

No AI-specific filing obligation. This instrument is in force but imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules; where it restates duties that already apply (Rule 11, professional conduct rules), those duties remain binding. It is listed so firms can see the court's stated expectations; the items below are not AI-specific filing obligations.

What the instrument provides

The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt a special rule regarding the use of AI in drafting briefs at this time.
Parties and counsel are reminded of their duties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(B).
Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that filings, including briefs, are carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already require.
'I used AI' will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.

Practice areas: federal appellate

Verify this order against the court's official website before relying on it. Standing orders are amended without notice. Requirements vary by judge and case type.

What the order says

In June 2024, the Fifth Circuit issued an on-record decision declining to adopt a proposed amendment to 5th Cir. R. 32.3 and Form 6. Published for comment in November 2023 (comments through January 4, 2024), the proposal would have required counsel and unrepresented filers to certify that no generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting a document or that all generated text had been “reviewed for accuracy and approved by a human.” The decision is short: it reminds counsel of their duties under FRAP 46(b)(1)(B) (the court’s original June 2024 posting read 6(b)(1)(B)), reaffirms accuracy obligations under existing rules, and includes a one-sentence enforcement signal that has been widely cited:

“‘I used AI’ will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.”

The decision is included in this tracker because, although no new rule was adopted, the Fifth Circuit’s on-record statement of expectations carries weight with district judges within the circuit. It is the closest thing to a circuit-wide AI rule in the Fifth Circuit, though it imposes no obligation of its own (the duties it points to already bind counsel), and makes clear that AI use is no excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.

No AI rule has been adopted since: the Fifth Circuit Rules as amended to December 1, 2025 contain no AI provision, and 5th Cir. R. 32.3 carries no AI certification.

Primary source

Court decision PDF: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf

Notice of proposed amendment (November 2023): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf

Fifth Circuit Rules as amended to December 1, 2025: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/forms-and-documents---clerks-office/rules/federalrulesofappellateprocedure.pdf

Sanctions cases decided under this order

Cases in our tracker where this rule appears to have produced or directly informed the sanctions decision.

Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. , Feb 2026 ($2,500)

5th Circuit (statewide for LA, MS, TX federal appellate practice): Fifth Circuit Court De…

Status and scope

What the instrument provides

What the order says

Primary source

Sanctions cases decided under this order

More orders affecting attorneys in this state

Court orders

From the blog