Federal Court AI Orders Are Splitting Into Clear Patterns

Current snapshot: June 4, 2026.

Federal courts are not moving toward one uniform AI rule. They are moving toward a patchwork. Some judges prohibit AI use in filings. Some require disclosure or certification. Others simply remind lawyers that Rule 11, candor, confidentiality, and sanctions rules still apply.

That makes the practical rule simple: check the forum before filing, check the judge before drafting, and verify every AI-assisted citation, quotation, factual assertion, and legal proposition before it goes to court.

1. No-use or near no-use orders

The strictest orders do not merely require disclosure. They prohibit AI use for filings or memoranda.

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Northern District of Ohio has a standing order stating that no attorney or pro se party may use AI in preparing any filing submitted to the court. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois similarly states in her standing requirements that parties may not use AI to draft memoranda or as authority to support motions.

These orders are still the minority approach, but they matter because they show that some courts view AI-assisted drafting itself as the risk, not just unverified AI output.

2. Disclose if AI was used

The more common approach is disclosure. These rules do not necessarily forbid AI. They require the filer to say when AI was used and sometimes to identify the tool or the AI-generated portions.

The Northern District of Texas now requires a brief prepared using generative AI to disclose that fact on the first page under the heading “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” If the required disclosure is absent, the filing operates as a certification that no part of the brief was prepared using generative AI.

Judge Michael M. Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requires a clear factual statement disclosing AI use in papers filed in cases assigned to him and a certification that all citations to law or the record have been verified. The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court uses a disclosure and certification form for generative AI use in pleadings, motions, and papers.

3. Certify or verify the work

Some courts focus less on whether AI was used and more on whether a human verified the final filing.

The District of Nebraska’s local rule requires a certificate stating either that no generative AI was used or that a human verified all generated text, including citations and legal authority. The District of Kansas reminds lawyers and pro se litigants that AI-assisted filings remain subject to existing duties of candor and accuracy and warns that the court may strike filings, impose sanctions, or require sworn AI-use statements.

This bucket is likely to grow because it fits comfortably with the existing professional-responsibility framework: AI can assist, but it cannot be the final authority.

4. Treat AI output as an unverified source

Some orders frame the problem as source reliability. The District of Hawaii’s General Order 23-1 treats AI-generated material as an unverified source and requires a declaration when counsel or a pro se party submits material generated by an unverified source.

That framing is useful. It avoids treating AI as uniquely mysterious and instead places it beside other unverified material: useful as a lead, not good enough as filed authority unless checked.

But Hawaii’s approach also creates a line-drawing problem. The order defines unverified sources to include AI-generated briefs and memoranda, along with online briefs or memoranda drafted by paid writers that are not tailored to a specific case. The risk is that lawyers may now have to decide not only whether they used AI, but whether a particular research output, template, summary, or purchased work product counts as an “unverified source.”

The last paragraph of the order matters because it carves out ordinary legal research. The court says the order does not affect basic research tools such as Westlaw, Lexis, or Bloomberg, and that no declaration is required when the sources can be found on those tools. That is a sensible safe harbor for conventional citation checking, but it also raises practical questions as legal research platforms add generative AI features. If a lawyer uses a research platform’s AI summary, answer, or drafting aid, is the source the underlying case law, the research database, or the AI-generated synthesis?

For lawyers, the safest reading is narrow: a source is not verified merely because it appeared inside a trusted platform. The underlying authority still has to be located, read, and checked. Hawaii’s final paragraph reduces friction for traditional legal research, but it should not be read as a blanket blessing for every AI-assisted feature embedded inside a legal research product.

5. Protect confidential and proprietary information

Other orders focus on confidentiality. Judge Stephen Vaden of the Court of International Trade requires disclosure when a filing contains text drafted with generative AI and a certification that the AI use did not disclose confidential or business proprietary information to an unauthorized party.

This is the piece many lawyers miss. AI orders are not just about fake cases. They are also about what happens when privileged, confidential, sealed, trade secret, business proprietary, health, financial, or export-controlled information is entered into a tool that may store, train on, or transmit user input.

6. Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707

The most important federal rulemaking item is not a filing-disclosure rule. It is proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707, which would address machine-generated evidence. The pending rules materials place proposed new Evidence Rule 707 on the December 1, 2027 track.

That issue is different from AI-assisted drafting. Filing orders ask whether lawyers verified what they submitted. Evidence rules ask whether machine-generated evidence is reliable enough to be admitted.

What lawyers should do now

Check district-wide local rules and judge-specific standing orders before drafting or filing.
Do not assume a general Rule 11 review is enough if the judge requires a separate disclosure or certificate.
Keep enough internal record of AI use to answer a court question without waiving privilege or exposing mental impressions unnecessarily.
Do not enter confidential, privileged, sealed, business proprietary, trade secret, protected health, financial, or export-controlled information into public AI tools.
Verify every citation, quotation, factual assertion, record reference, and legal proposition outside the AI tool.

Help us keep the tracker current

Clearon AI is tracking federal and state court AI orders, standing orders, local rules, protective-order language, and sanctions decisions. If you have found a court order on AI that is not reflected here, please send it through the Contact page.

The most helpful submissions include the court, judge, date, docket number or rule number, a link to the order or PDF, and a short note on what the order requires. We will verify submissions against primary court sources before adding them to the tracker.