D. Neb.: U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: NECivR 7.1(d) Generative AI an…
Court (en banc local rule amendment) · U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
Verified September 27, 2026
- Citation
- U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: NECivR 7.1(d) Generative AI and Certificate of Compliance
- Order date
- December 1, 2024
Summary
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).
What does the order require?
- 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).
- All parties are required, if using generative artificial intelligence programs, to verify the contents of their filings.
- Any filing not properly verified may be stricken and/or sanctions may be imposed on the filing party.
- The Certificate of Compliance that accompanies every brief (NECivR 7.1(d)(1)(D)) attests to word count only. The two-option generative AI certificate that the December 1, 2024 rules required in every brief was deleted effective December 1, 2025.
- A brief that violates the word-limit subsection may be stricken in the court's sole discretion; a material misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance may result in striking the document and sanctions against the signer; the opposing party shall not file a motion to strike based on alleged noncompliance.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule requires
Since December 1, 2025, the generative AI provision of the Nebraska Civil Rules sits at NECivR 7.1(d)(2) (“Generative Artificial Intelligence”) and provides: “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). All parties are required, if using generative artificial intelligence programs, to verify the contents of their filings. Any filing not properly verified may be stricken and/or sanctions may be imposed on the filing party.”
- Verification duty. Responsibility for every quotation, citation, paraphrase, and piece of legal analysis stays with the party, and a party that used generative AI is “required” to verify the filing. The 2024 text said such parties were “expected” to verify.
- Consequences. An unverified filing “may be stricken and/or sanctions may be imposed on the filing party.” Separately, under 7.1(d)(1)(E), a brief that violates the word-limit subsection may be stricken and a material misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance may draw sanctions, and “the opposing party shall not file a motion to strike based on alleged noncompliance with this subsection.”
- No AI certificate. The Certificate of Compliance at 7.1(d)(1)(D) states the word count and the word-processing software used. It contains no statement about generative AI.
The 2024 certificate, and why it disappeared
From December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025, NECivR 7.1(d)(4)(B) required the Certificate of Compliance in every brief to state either that no generative AI program was used or that a human signatory had verified the accuracy of all generated text, including all citations and legal authority. The court’s Summary of 2025 Proposed Amendments to Local Rules, approved for publication in September 2025, describes the change: the certificate of compliance moved into the word-limit subsection and now applies “only for word limits”, and 7.1(d)(2) was amended “to require parties using generative artificial intelligence to verify the contents of their filings and to state the possible consequences of failure to verify filings.” The same summary made the parallel change to the criminal rules at NECrimR 12.3(d). The net effect is a stronger verification duty with an express striking-and-sanctions consequence, and no disclosure or certification of AI use.
How this differs from a standalone AI standing order
Most federal AI orders are individual judges’ standing orders or one-off general orders. Nebraska remains one of the few districts with a generative AI duty written into the en banc local civil rules, so there is no judge-by-judge variation within the district. But since December 1, 2025 the district asks for nothing on the face of the filing: no certificate and no disclosure. The obligation is verification, enforced through striking and sanctions.
Practitioner workflow
For every brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, confirm the Certificate of Compliance carries the word count and software statement required by NECivR 7.1(d)(1)(D). No AI statement belongs in it. If generative AI touched the draft, document the human verification of every quotation, citation, and factual assertion in the matter file. The rule prescribes no production procedure; the record is our recommendation, so that a firm can show the verification happened if a filing is challenged under 7.1(d)(2). The rule applies to supporting, opposing, and reply briefs. The 2026 proposed amendments, published for comment in September 2026, would add a paper-size and formatting paragraph and renumber the generative AI paragraph to 7.1(d)(3) effective December 1, 2026, without changing its text.
Scope
All civil briefs filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Pro se litigants are bound by the same rule.
Primary sources
How this order changed
Dated record of this order's own lifecycle. Where it was amended or withdrawn, the badge shows its standing after that step.
- activeThe Nebraska Civil Rules effective December 1, 2024 add a generative AI provision: parties using generative AI are expected to verify their filings, and NECivR 7.1(d)(4)(B) requires every brief's Certificate of Compliance to state either that no generative AI program was used or that a human signatory verified the accuracy of all generated text. source
- amendedThe rules effective December 1, 2025 move the provision to NECivR 7.1(d)(2), make verification 'required', and delete the two-option generative AI certificate; the Certificate of Compliance attests to word count only. source