The Expert Record logo — a ruled transcript pageThe Expert RecordThe standard for expert witnesses using AI

AI in the Courtroom · Fabricated citations and facts in filings

Daghra v. Hinkley (government counsel)

The Government's response to a show-cause order cited a Sixth Circuit case that does not exist. The court found the citation was likely produced by generative AI, declined to impose sanctions, and directed that future filings not include non-existent case law.

Primary document readPetition dismissed as moot; no sanction imposed; directive as to future filings July 16, 2026

By · Published · How this site is researched

What happened

In a habeas petition brought by an immigration detainee, counsel for the United States filed a response to the court's show-cause order. The response cited "Taylor v. Hott, 724 F. App'x 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2018)," with a parenthetical and a quotation.

The court checked it. Page 387 of that volume is occupied by Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc., 724 F. App'x 383 (6th Cir. 2018), a commercial arbitration case. The court was unable to identify any Sixth Circuit case captioned Taylor v. Hott, or any federal case containing the quoted language.

What the court did

The court dismissed the section 2241 petition without prejudice as moot, the bond stay having expired. It addressed the citation separately, writing: "Thus, it seems this citation was likely produced by generative artificial intelligence ('AI')."

It declined to impose sanctions at that time. It stated that the Government must ensure that its future filings with the court do not include non-existent case law, and emphasized that attorneys must scrupulously review the output of these systems.

Where it stands

The order was entered July 16, 2026. No later proceeding on the citation was located as of September 17, 2026.

The obligation it engaged

This entry is on the site because of who filed it. Most of the matters collected here involve solo practitioners, small firms and litigants without counsel, and it is tempting to read the pattern as a resourcing problem. It is not. The filing here came from the Department of Justice.

The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, and it engaged the simplest form of it. The citation was checkable in the reporter. The court checked it in the time it takes to look up a volume and page. An expert asserting a standard, a specification, a study or a figure is making the same kind of checkable claim, and the party on the other side has the same amount of time.

The related point is institutional. An organization with a verification policy still produces filings, and a policy that is not executed at the moment of signing produces exactly this. Compare In re Prince Global Holdings, where a large firm's disclosure letter acknowledged that its verification policy had not been followed.

Sources

What could not be confirmed

The individual attorney is not named in this entry. The court did not make a finding that a particular system was used; it stated that the citation seems likely to have been produced by generative artificial intelligence. Whether the Department of Justice took any internal action was not located.

About this entry

This entry was checked against the primary document listed in the sources. The entry for Daghra v. Hinkley records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 17, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under the fabricated-authority matters. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].

Arrow pointing upTop