AI Standing Orders Tracker
Last verified July 17, 2026. Curated starter, not exhaustive — see Section 5.
Since Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) — the case where attorneys submitted a ChatGPT-hallucinated brief with fabricated citations and were sanctioned — hundreds of federal and state judges have issued standing orders, local rules, or individual practice rules addressing generative AI in court filings. This page is a curated, sourced starting point, not a substitute for checking the specific court’s own website before you file.
Honesty note: we only list orders reported by a specific, dated source we could verify. Every entry below links the secondary source we checked (a law-firm or law-library publication) alongside the primary court document that source itself cites. We did not invent any entry on this page.
1. Federal district judges — disclosure or certification required
| Court / Judge | What the order requires | Source |
|---|---|---|
| N.D. Texas — Judge Brantley Starr | One of the earliest, most widely cited AI standing orders (May 2023); certification that no portion of a filing was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted content was checked by a human for accuracy. | Tracelaw tracker, Apr 2026 |
| N.D. Texas — Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative AI — any party believing a GenAI platform is accurate/reliable enough for legal briefing must move for leave and explain why. | Drug & Device Law (Reed Smith), Apr 14, 2026 |
| N.D. Texas — district-wide | Local Civil Rule 7.2(f)(1): a brief must disclose GenAI use on the first page under the heading “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence”; the presiding judge may direct disclosure of the specific parts AI-prepared. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| S.D.N.Y. — Judge Vernon S. Broderick | Civil Rules Rule 4(J): any party must disclose GenAI use whenever it is used to prepare a filing, and certify independent review/verification of accuracy. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| S.D.N.Y. — Judge John P. Cronan | Individual Rules and Practices Rule 2(E): certify personal review of the filing for accuracy of cited authorities/facts, and describe in detail the verification steps taken. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| S.D.N.Y. — Judge Dale E. Ho | Individual Rules and Practices ask attorneys to declare/disclose GenAI use, including which tool and how results were incorporated. | UNC Kathrine R. Everett Law Library, Feb 23, 2026 |
| S.D. Texas — Judge Olvera | Local Rules Rule 8(C)(1): a certificate, filed at the outset of a case, attesting either that no filing portion will be GenAI-drafted or that any GenAI-drafted language will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a person. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| M.D. Pennsylvania — Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo | Requires parties to certify they have checked the accuracy of any AI-generated document portion, including all citations and legal authority. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| C.D. California — Judge Blumenfeld | Standing Order Rule 5(c): certification that the filer reviewed the source material and verified the AI-generated content is accurate. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| C.D. California — Judge Hwang | Standing Order Rule E(5): same certification requirement as above. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| N.D. California — Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen | Standing Order Rule 10: imputes GenAI-hallucination sanctions to the signing attorney or party, on the theory that a signature confirms personal review of AI-generated content. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| N.D. California — Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang | One of the more comprehensive standing orders found: covers filings, evidence, and confidentiality separately (Rule VII(C)); requires identifying GenAI tools used for drafting and record-keeping of prompts for confidentiality compliance. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| S.D. Ohio — Judge James L. Graham | Standing Order on the Use of Generative AI (Oct 21, 2025) expressly invokes Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | UNC Law Library, Feb 23, 2026 |
| D. Massachusetts; E.D. Pennsylvania; N.D. Illinois (Standing Order 23-1) | Disclosure of AI use in substantive legal content plus certification that citations were independently verified (D. Mass. and E.D. Pa. reported as similar disclosure-and-certification regimes; N.D. Ill. formalized theirs as Standing Order 23-1). | Tracelaw tracker, Apr 2026 |
2. Courts that restrict or prohibit AI use outright
| Court / Judge | What the order requires | Source |
|---|---|---|
| W.D. North Carolina | All filings must be accompanied by a certification that no AI was used in researching the document, except AI embedded in traditional legal research tools, and that every statement and citation was checked by an attorney or paralegal. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| S.D. Ohio — Judge Newman | Standing Civil Order (Aug 27, 2025) prohibits any AI use in preparing a court filing, with exceptions for legal search engines, general internet search engines, or Microsoft Office. Violations can mean striking the pleading, economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| N.D. Ohio — Judge Boyko | Standing Order reported as substantively the same AI-use prohibition as Judge Newman’s S.D. Ohio order. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| N.D. Illinois — Judge Coleman | Case Procedures prohibit using AI to draft memoranda or cite AI output as authority supporting a motion. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
3. State and local courts
| Court / Judge | What the order requires | Source |
|---|---|---|
| NY Supreme Court, Erie County — Judge Peter Weinmann | IAS Rules require certification that a filing has been verified and reviewed by a human being. | Drug & Device Law, Apr 14, 2026 |
| Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia — Judge Alice Benton | Standing Order requires disclosure of any “use of AI,” a broader trigger than the generative-AI-only standard used by most federal orders. | UNC Law Library, Feb 23, 2026 |
| Gray County Court, Texas | Order includes an explicit requirement to verify GenAI-created or GenAI-contributed content using a traditional, non-AI legal source, checked by a person licensed to practice law in Texas. | UNC Law Library, Feb 23, 2026 |
| Arkansas Supreme Court | Guidance warns that entering confidential information into GenAI tools, especially public LLMs, may violate existing attorney confidentiality obligations. | UNC Law Library, Feb 23, 2026 |
| Illinois Supreme Court | Statewide AI Policy takes the opposite stance from most orders above: it specifically permits AI use in court proceedings, subject to ethical safeguards and oversight, rather than restricting it. | UNC Law Library, Feb 23, 2026 |
| 11th and 17th Judicial Circuits, Florida | Reported to have ordered disclosure and certification of AI use in court filings; the Florida Bar has also issued Ethics Opinion 24-1 on generative AI. | Tracelaw tracker, Apr 2026 |
4. Proposed, pending, or explicitly not adopted — a nuance most trackers skip
Not every widely discussed AI court rule ended up in force. Being explicit about this matters for accuracy:
- Fifth Circuit (proposed, not adopted). In November 2023 the Fifth Circuit proposed a local rule amendment (proposed Rule 32.3 and a certification Form 6) that would have required attorneys to certify that no AI was used in drafting a filing, or that all AI-generated text was reviewed and approved by a human. After a public comment period — many commenters argued the rule was unnecessary because attorneys are already responsible for filing accuracy — the Fifth Circuit announced in June 2024 that it would not adopt the proposed rule.
- Texas Supreme Court (under discussion, not enacted). Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock has been reported as open to discussing a full ban on AI use across Texas state courts; as of this page’s last-verified date, that discussion had not resulted in an enacted statewide rule.
- California SB 574 (proposed legislation). Reported as a pending bill that would establish uniform, statewide citation-verification standards for AI use in legal filings — not yet law as of this page’s last-verified date.
Sources: UNC Law Library, Feb 23, 2026; Tracelaw tracker, Apr 2026.
5. For the comprehensive, continuously updated list
This page is a starter, not a database. Courts add and amend AI standing orders with little notice. For the most current and comprehensive coverage, use an actively maintained tracker:
- Ropes & Gray — Standing Orders, Local Rules, and Decisions on the Use of AI (searchable by state, court, and judge)
- Tracelaw — Court AI Disclosure Requirements Tracker
- Responsible AI in Legal Services (RAILS) — AI in Courts Tracker
- Law360 Pulse — Tracking Federal Judge Orders on Artificial Intelligence
6. What this means if you use Citation Safe
Whatever your court’s standing order requires you to certify, Citation Safe™ gives you a documented, timestamped record of what was checked and how — see shared verification reports and our AI Disclosure page for exactly which layers of our own pipeline are deterministic versus AI-assisted. Citation Safe™ does not draft a certification for you, does not know your specific court’s exact required language, and is not a substitute for reading your judge’s standing order yourself. See our Disclaimer and Terms of Service.
7. Contact
Spot an error, a broken link, or an order we should add with a verifiable source? Email support@citationsafe.com. Digital Empire Holdings LLC, 30 N Gould St Ste N, Sheridan, WY 82801.