D. Minn.: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota: Gen-AI FAQ
Adopted by the court on the recommendation of its Federal Practice Committee · U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota: Gen-AI FAQ
- Order date
- October 1, 2025
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 District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings.' Litigants 'should be aware, however, of AI-use disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions.'
What the instrument provides
- 'The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings.' Litigants 'should be aware, however, of AI-use disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions.'
- 'Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 26(g), you are ultimately responsible for the accuracy and sufficiency of the resulting work product, and for any other impacts of your GenAI use.'
- Practice pointers: avoid entering privileged, confidential, or sensitive information where inputs may be retained or accessed; review the accuracy of GenAI-created factual assertions; 'confirm that GenAI-provided legal research and citations are valid references to existing caselaw, statutes, or regulations that have not been superseded or overruled, and that cited excerpts are not taken out of context.'
- 'You must always use GenAI in a manner consistent with applicable ethical obligations, obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 26(g), and duties under controlling protective orders.'
- The court's public notice describes the FAQ as 'an informational resource.'
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
What the FAQ says
On October 1, 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota adopted a Gen-AI FAQ on the recommendation of its Federal Practice Committee. The court’s public notice of the same date describes it as “an informational resource” and states that “no public comments to the FAQ are necessary.”
On disclosure the FAQ is direct: “The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court filings. Litigants should be aware, however, of AI-use disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions.”
It then restates the duty that already applies: “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 26(g), you are ultimately responsible for the accuracy and sufficiency of the resulting work product, and for any other impacts of your GenAI use.” Its practice pointers cover confidentiality (avoid entering privileged or sensitive information into tools that may retain it, and review a tool’s terms of use and security statement), prompting, reviewing GenAI-created factual assertions, confirming that “GenAI-provided legal research and citations are valid references to existing caselaw, statutes, or regulations that have not been superseded or overruled,” and reviewing tone and imagery.
How the tracker treats it
The FAQ is listed as advisory. It adds no disclosure, certification, or verification step beyond Rules 11 and 26(g). Its pointer to “requirements in other jurisdictions” is a reminder that a practitioner filing outside the district may face a disclosure rule.