Texas Has Three Different Federal AI Rules -- Here's How N.D., E.D., and S.D. Texas Differ

Written by the Citation Safe Research Desk · Reviewed by Andy Gaber, Founder — July 17, 2026

Part of: Court AI Standing Orders by Jurisdiction

Texas’s federal district courts have moved on AI disclosure faster and more formally than most states, but the two documented district-level rules — N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) and E.D. Tex.’s amended Local Rule CV-11(g) — are structurally different from each other, not copies of the same template.
N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), effective September 2, 2025, requires a brief prepared using generative AI to carry a “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence” disclosure heading on its first page — an affirmative disclosure duty, with silence itself treated as a certification that no AI was used.
E.D. Tex.’s General Order 25-07, effective December 1, 2025, instead amended Local Rule CV-11(g) to require that all litigants — not just pro se filers, as the original 2023 version specified — review and verify AI-generated content, without imposing a first-page disclosure heading requirement.
Both district-level rules exist independently of, and on top of, any individual judge’s own standing order (such as Judge Starr’s within N.D. Tex.) — a filer in either district needs to check both the district-wide local rule and the assigned judge’s own chambers rules.

Two different district rules, not one Texas template

It would be a mistake to treat “Texas has AI disclosure rules” as a single, uniform statement. The Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas have each adopted their own district-wide rule, and the two rules require different things.

N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f): a disclosure heading requirement

The full primary text, from the Northern District of Texas’s own local civil rules, reads: “(f) Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. (1) A brief prepared using generative artificial intelligence must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading ’Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.’ If the presiding judge so directs, the party filing the brief must disclose the specific parts prepared using generative artificial intelligence. (2) ’Generative Artificial Intelligence’ means a computer tool (whether referred to as ’Generative Artificial Intelligence’ or by another name) that is capable of generating new content (such as images and text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples. (3) A party who files a brief that does not contain the disclosure required by subsection (f)(1) of this rule certifies that no part of the brief was prepared using generative artificial intelligence” (N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rules, effective September 2, 2025, LR 7.2(f)).

Three things stand out in this primary text. First, the definition of “Generative Artificial Intelligence” is deliberately tool-agnostic — it defines the category functionally (a tool that generates new content from a prompt using a learned reference database) rather than naming specific products, which means the rule doesn’t require updating every time a new AI product launches. Second, the disclosure trigger is broad: the presiding judge can require disclosure of which specific parts of a brief were AI-prepared, not just a blanket yes/no. Third, and most consequential procedurally: silence is not neutral. Filing a brief with no disclosure heading at all is treated as an affirmative certification that no AI was used — meaning a filer who used AI but forgot the heading has, by the rule’s own terms, filed a false certification, not merely an incomplete one.

E.D. Tex. General Order 25-07: a review-and-verify duty, no heading requirement

The Eastern District of Texas took a different approach. General Order 25-07 amended Local Rule CV-11(g) — a rule that started in 2023 addressing pro se litigants specifically — to extend to all litigants. The amended rule’s core text: “All litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services). Litigants are cautioned that certain generative artificial intelligence technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. If a litigant chooses to employ generative artificial intelligence technology, the litigant continues to be bound by the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and must review and verify all any computer-generated content to ensure that it complies with all such standards” (E.D. Tex. General Order 25-07, effective December 1, 2025). The order’s own comment explains the amendment’s purpose directly: the court “has seen an increasing number of filings that improperly utilized generative artificial intelligence by failing to review and verify the factual and legal accuracy of all content generated by such tools,” and the 2023 version’s pro-se-only scope wasn’t reaching the full problem.

Notice what’s absent here relative to N.D. Tex.: no first-page disclosure heading, no requirement to flag which parts were AI-generated, and no rule-created consequence for non-disclosure specifically (the rule instead ties back to existing Rule 11 obligations, which apply “regardless of how a filing is prepared,” per the order’s own comment). E.D. Tex.’s rule is a review-and-verify duty; N.D. Tex.’s rule is a disclosure-and-certify duty. Compliance with one does not automatically satisfy the other.

Why the distinction matters practically

A filer with matters in both the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas cannot rely on a single compliance checklist. Filing in N.D. Tex. without the required first-page heading — even on a brief where AI was used only for minor research assistance — risks the rule treating the omission as a false certification. Filing in E.D. Tex. requires no comparable heading, but a filer who doesn’t independently review and verify AI-assisted content for accuracy is exposed under Rule 11 regardless of disclosure. The two rules are solving a similar underlying problem (AI-generated inaccuracy reaching filings) with structurally different mechanisms, and neither substitutes for the other.

What this means for practice in Texas federal courts

Confirm which district a matter is filed in before applying either rule’s specific mechanics. N.D. Tex.’s heading requirement and E.D. Tex.’s review-and-verify duty are not interchangeable compliance steps.
In N.D. Tex., silence is a certification, not an omission. A filer who used AI and forgot the disclosure heading has, per the rule’s own text, certified falsely — treat the heading as mandatory whenever any AI assistance was used, however minor.
District-wide rules layer on top of individual judges’ own standing orders. A filer in either district should also check whether their assigned judge (such as Judge Starr, within N.D. Tex.) has an additional individual standing order — district rule compliance doesn’t automatically satisfy a judge’s own separate certification requirement.
Neither rule bans AI use. Both operate on a disclosure-or-verification model, consistent with the dominant national pattern the pillar documents (161 disclosure/verification entries against only 5 outright prohibitions in the Ropes & Gray tracker).

Sources

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Local Civil Rules, effective September 2, 2025 — LR 7.2(f), full text fetched and quoted directly.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, General Order 25-07: Amending Local Rules, effective December 1, 2025 — full text fetched and quoted directly, including the court’s own comment on the pro-se-to-all-litigants amendment.

Citation Safe is a verification workflow tool, not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created. Human review is always required. Court rules change; always confirm current requirements against the specific court’s published rules before filing. This article does not address the Southern or Western Districts of Texas, which are outside its scope.

Check a brief before you file it →