D. Colo.: Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court…
Hon. Nina Y. Wang · U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (Hon. Nina Y. Wang, D. Colo.)
- Order date
- December 1, 2025
Summary
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.
What does the order require?
- 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.
- If generative AI was used, each individual must certify that any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority.
- The AI Certification does not count against any page limitations.
- All filings remain subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and applicable ethical rules.
- Filings that do not comply with the AI Certification requirement may be stricken without substantive consideration and with leave to re-file a compliant document.
- The order names representative tools (ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Gemini) but applies to generative AI generally.
- Two example certification forms are provided in the order: a 'no AI used' form, and a 'specific tool used + party advised and consented + manual review of authority' form.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule requires
Judge Wang’s standing order applies to every filing, not just substantive motions or briefs, and requires a Certification from every individual who contributed to the drafting. The certification must specify whether generative AI was used, and if so, attest that any AI-drafted language (including human-edited AI text) was personally reviewed by a human for accuracy and that legal citations reference actual non-fictitious authority.
Two distinct elements distinguish Judge Wang’s regime from neighboring D. Colo. judges. First, the rule applies to every filing rather than only substantive motions, which is broader than Hon. S. Kato Crews’s substantive-motion rule and Hon. Susan Prose’s specific-motion-types rule. Second, the order provides two model certification forms in the body of the order itself: a “no AI used” form and a “specific tool + party-consent + manual-review” form. The latter form’s reference to party consent is unusual and codifies a client-disclosure expectation alongside the court-disclosure requirement.
The compliance penalty is striking-with-leave-to-refile, calibrated to be procedurally light: noncompliant filings get struck, but the party can re-file a compliant version. The order expressly preserves Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and applicable ethical rules as independent obligations.
The order has been the subject of a vacated motion in Hessert v. The Street Dog Coalition (D. Colo. Apr. 17, 2026), where Judge Wang denied a pro se plaintiff’s First Amendment / due process / equal protection / work product / “legislating from the bench” challenge with a one-line “without merit” finding.
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2025-12-03. The order PDF states “Effective: December 1, 2025” on its face. R&G is two days off; 2025-12-01 is the operative effective date as it appears on the order. The PDF lives on Judge Wang’s chambers page under cod.uscourts.gov/JudicialOfficers/ActiveArticleIIIJudges.
Quotable language
“Every filing shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing.”
“To the extent that generative AI was used in any drafting of the filing, each individual must certify that any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority.”
“Filings that do not comply with the AI Certification requirement may be stricken without substantive consideration and with leave to re-file a compliant document.”
Primary source
Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative AI in Court Filings (Wang, J.), cod.uscourts.gov