Courts are drawing a line between AI-fabricated authorities and actual sanctions

Three 2026 appellate decisions show the consequences of filing fabricated or misrepresented legal authorities, whether or not a court establishes that AI produced them. The consequences still vary sharply by case: Oregon imposed a $250 payment after a litigant admitted relying on AI-generated citations; Idaho warned that similar conduct could warrant sanctions but imposed none in the appeal; and a Hawaii appellate court identified Rule 11 violations in an order marked “not for publication in West’s Hawaii Reports and Pacific Reporter” without imposing a monetary sanction.

The cases offer a more precise lesson than “courts are banning AI.” They show courts focusing on verification, candor, and the burden that fabricated authority places on the judicial system.

Oregon: a reduced but real payment

In R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or. App. 182 (2026), the Oregon Court of Appeals considered a pro se respondent’s appeal of a continuing restraining order. The court’s opinion included a separate discussion titled “Artificial Intelligence and the Use of Fabricated Cases.”

The respondent’s opening brief cited three fabricated cases. After the court issued an order to show cause addressing whether the brief should be stricken and whether sanctions should be imposed, the respondent acknowledged that the citations resulted from reliance on artificial intelligence, apologized, and accepted responsibility.

The court said it would proceed with the merits but would disregard the fabricated authorities and the support those authorities purported to provide. It also explained that fabricated authorities divert court resources into identifying false citations, considering show-cause proceedings, and deciding whether sanctions are appropriate.

The court ultimately affirmed the restraining order and directed the respondent to pay $250 to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department. That amount was reduced from the $1,500 contemplated in the show-cause order, with the court citing the respondent’s acknowledgment of the errors, their severity, and the respondent’s limited financial resources.

The decision is important for what it does not say. It does not treat AI use itself as the violation. The court’s concern was the filing of fabricated legal authorities and the resulting burden on the court.

Idaho: a warning without an additional monetary sanction

The Idaho Supreme Court addressed a similar problem in Posey v. Bushnell, an opinion filed September 22, 2026. The underlying appeal arose from a defamation judgment, but the court separately addressed the risks of relying on generative AI in appellate briefing.

The court stated that AI reliance does not excuse inaccuracies, whether the litigant is represented or proceeding without counsel. It dismissed nine issues because of deficiencies in the appellant’s briefing. The court expressly said those dismissals were not sanctions under Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2. It also said the briefing reflected a pervasive failure to verify factual and legal representations.

The court also said the filing obligations in Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2 require a signer to certify, after reasonable inquiry, that a filing is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law. The court wrote that the conduct could warrant sanctions under the rule.

But it did not impose an additional monetary sanction in the appeal. The court declined to award attorney fees sua sponte, noting that the prevailing party had not requested them and that the appellant was already subject to a substantial judgment. The court expressly said that its decision should not minimize the seriousness of the conduct, while exercising its discretion to impose no sanction in that appeal.

That distinction matters. A warning that conduct could support sanctions is not the same as a sanctions award.

Hawaii: Rule 11 language, but no monetary penalty in the order

In U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Thomas, a Hawaii appellate summary disposition order filed October 8, 2026, the court identified fabricated and unsupported authorities in the appellant’s brief. The order states that several cited cases did not exist and that other authorities were cited for propositions they did not support.

The court characterized those errors as violations of Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b)(2), applied through Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 2.1(a). It also criticized the answering brief for failing to call the court’s attention to the hallucinated authorities.

The order was marked “not for publication in West’s Hawaii Reports and Pacific Reporter.” It affirmed the foreclosure judgment, but the order did not impose a monetary sanction.

The court identified Rule 11(b)(2) violations, but did not find that Thomas used AI or hold that AI use itself violates a rule. The relevant problem was the submission of nonexistent or materially unsupported authorities in a court filing.

The emerging rule is verification, not an AI ban

Read together, the three decisions suggest a practical hierarchy:

• Fabricated citations create an immediate credibility and briefing problem. Courts may disregard arguments supported by authorities that do not exist.
• A court can impose sanctions, but the result is case-specific. Oregon imposed a reduced $250 payment; Idaho and Hawaii did not impose a monetary sanction in the decisions discussed here.
• Admissions and corrective conduct can matter, but they do not erase the burden created by the filing. Oregon considered the respondent’s acknowledgment and resources when setting the reduced amount.
• Procedural posture controls the remedy. Idaho dismissed issues and declined fees; Hawaii addressed the problem in an order marked “not for publication in West’s Hawaii Reports and Pacific Reporter”; Oregon proceeded on the merits while separately imposing a payment.
• The opinions do not establish that AI assistance alone violates a rule. Their focus is on accuracy, reasonable inquiry, candor, and the consequences of filing unverified legal material.

For lawyers and self-represented litigants, the operational takeaway is straightforward: every case, quotation, statute, and rule supplied by an AI system must be independently checked against an authoritative source before it enters a brief. A disclaimer that a tool was used will not substitute for that review.

The cases also caution against collapsing different outcomes into a single “AI sanctions” trend. Oregon involved an actual payment. Idaho expressly declined a monetary sanction while warning that sanctions could be warranted. Hawaii identified Rule 11 violations in an order that was not for publication and imposed no monetary penalty. Those differences are part of the story, not details to omit.

Sources

• Oregon Court of Appeals, R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or. App. 182 (2026): official opinion
• Idaho Supreme Court, Posey v. Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (Sept. 22, 2026): official opinion
• Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Thomas, CAAP-24-0000837 (Oct. 8, 2026): official order