S.D. Tex.: General Order 2025-04, In Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Cou…
Chief Judge Randy Crane · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Verified April 27, 2026
- Citation
- General Order 2025-04, In Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings
- Order date
- May 7, 2025
Summary
Attorneys and self-represented litigants are cautioned against submitting any pleading, motion, or other paper drafted using generative AI without checking the submission for accuracy.
What does the order require?
- Attorneys and self-represented litigants are cautioned against submitting any pleading, motion, or other paper drafted using generative AI without checking the submission for accuracy.
- AI tools should never replace the lawyer's independent legal judgment.
- Any attorney or self-represented litigant who signs a filing will be held responsible for its contents under Rule 11, regardless of whether generative AI drafted any portion of the filing.
- Sanctions under Rule 11(c) may include nonmonetary directives, a penalty payable to the court, or payment to the opposing party of attorney's fees and expenses directly resulting from the violation.
Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal
What the order requires
The Southern District of Texas issued General Order 2025-04 on May 7, 2025, signed by Chief Judge Randy Crane. The order is district-wide. It does not impose a separate certification or disclosure requirement; instead, it is a Rule-11-anchored caution to attorneys and pro se litigants:
- Cautions against submitting any filing drafted using generative AI without first checking it for accuracy, recognizing that AI tools may produce factually or legally inaccurate content.
- Reaffirms that generative AI should never replace the lawyer’s independent legal judgment.
- Reiterates that any signer of a filing is responsible for its contents under Rule 11, regardless of AI involvement.
- Notes the full sanctions toolkit available under Rule 11(c), including nonmonetary directives, court-payable penalties, and attorney’s fees.
Why this matters even without a new certification
S.D. Tex. is one of the largest federal districts in the country and a frequent venue for commercial litigation. Unlike chambers-specific orders such as those by Judges Baylson (E.D. Pa.), Boyko (N.D. Ohio), and Newman (S.D. Ohio), this order applies to every judge and every filing in the district. It is also notable for what it does not require: no AI-specific disclosure, no separate certification, no carve-out for embedded AI in legal-research platforms. The order’s effect is to put the bar on notice that Rule 11 exposure for AI-generated hallucinations is the operative enforcement mechanism, not a new procedural rule.
Scope
District-wide. Applies to any pleading, written motion, or other paper filed in the Southern District of Texas.
Primary source
Sanctions cases decided under this order
Cases in our tracker where this rule appears to have produced or directly informed the sanctions decision.
- Montoya Cabanas v. Bondi , Nov 2025
- Elizondo v. City of Laredo , Jul 2025 ($2,500)