D. Colo.: Hessert v. The Street Dog Coalition: Minute Order Denying Constitutional Challe…
Nina Y. Wang, U.S. District Judge · U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Hessert v. The Street Dog Coalition: Minute Order Denying Constitutional Challenge to D. Colo. AI Standing Order
- Order date
- April 17, 2026
Status and scope
A decision about Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings (Hon. Nina Y. Wang, D. Colo.), which remains in force and binding on attorney filings; this ruling creates no new duty of its own, and the underlying instrument's requirements apply as stated on its page. The decision holds: Judge Wang's Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings is 'applicable to all litigants appearing before this Court'; a plaintiff's pro se status 'does not exempt him from complying with the Standing Order.'
What the decision holds
- Judge Wang's Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings is 'applicable to all litigants appearing before this Court'; a plaintiff's pro se status 'does not exempt him from complying with the Standing Order.'
- Noncompliance with the Standing Order may result in filings being stricken.
- Arguments that the Standing Order improperly compels speech in violation of the First Amendment, violates due process or equal protection, encroaches on attorney work product, or amounts to legislating from the bench are 'without merit.'
Practice areas: federal civil, pro se
In a Minute Order dated April 17, 2026 in Hessert v. The Street Dog Coalition, U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang denied a pro se plaintiff’s request to “[v]acate the reference to the standing order on AI as … not applicable and unconstitutional,” made in his Second Supplemental Motion to Modify ECF No. 109. The order at issue is Judge Wang’s own Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Court Filings; the District of Colorado has no district-wide AI order. The plaintiff had argued that the Standing Order “improperly compels speech in violation of the First Amendment, violates his due process and equal protection rights, encroaches upon work product, and amounts to legislating from the bench.” The court denied the request, stating that “these arguments are without merit.”
The order is tracked here because it is a written federal ruling rejecting constitutional challenges to a judge’s generative-AI standing order. A prior Minute Order in the same case (ECF No. 109, April 13, 2026) had advised Hessert that “his pro se status does not exempt him from complying with the Standing Order” and that “[f]uture filings that do not comply with the Standing Order may be stricken.” The April 17, 2026 order reinforces that the Standing Order remains enforceable in cases before Judge Wang. A May 6, 2026 order (ECF No. 137) proposed filing restrictions that would require any future filing to include a certification complying with it.