Whiting v. City of Athens

What happened

Whiting v. City of Athens consolidated three appeals, Nos. 24-5918, 24-5919 and 25-5424, arising from lawsuits over a 2022 municipal fireworks show and its aftermath. Van R. Irion filed the suits for the plaintiff; Russ Egli represented the plaintiff and Irion in one of the appeals.

Prompted by a footnote in the city's briefing, the panel reviewed the plaintiff's briefs and reported that "we found over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact in Whiting's briefs," a figure it called a conservative estimate. The appendix lists them. Examples include:

• a Sixth Circuit decision cited as Berg v. Knox County, with a Westlaw number that generates no case;
• a Tennessee Code section the court could not find;
• three quotations attributed to Fox v. Vice that do not appear in it;
• United States v. Alvarez cited for a proposition the plurality rejected;
• an assertion that the district court imposed sanctions sua sponte, when they were imposed on the city's motion.

The show-cause order asked counsel, among other things, who wrote the briefs, whether they were ghostwritten, whether generative AI was used, and how they were cite-checked. Counsel did not answer. They responded that the order was "void on its face for failing to include a signature of an Article III judge," because the circuit clerk had signed it.

What the court did

Writing for the panel, Judge Bush held the appeals frivolous as argued under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and imposed further sanctions under the court's inherent authority, finding bad faith. The panel quoted a district court decision, United States v. McGee, rejecting the idea that partial support cures fabricated citations: "Put bluntly—absolutely not; period; end of story; all stop." It also rejected each objection to the show-cause order, including the clerk-signature argument, on which the Supreme Court had twice denied counsel's mandamus petitions.

The sanctions in Whiting v. City of Athens:

• Irion and Egli, jointly and severally, reimburse the appellees' reasonable attorney fees on appeal in full, in all three appeals;
• double costs under 28 U.S.C. section 1920 in all three appeals;
• $15,000 each to the court's registry as punitive sanctions;
• a copy of the opinion to the chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth Circuit Local Rule 46.

The panel cited four aggravating factors: further misconduct while appealing sanctions orders, prior discipline of both lawyers for lack of candor, defiance of the show-cause order, and responses that accused the court of a conspiracy. It declined to sanction the plaintiff personally for lack of evidence that he took part.

The court made no finding that AI produced the citations. Its footnote on AI hallucinations is general, and counsel never said how the briefs were prepared.

Where it stands

The opinion is recommended for publication as 26a0080p.06; a separate opinion issued the same day affirmed the district court on the merits. The appellees were directed to file a fee accounting within seven days, and the panel retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The amounts awarded and any Local Rule 46 proceedings were not located as of October 21.

Whiting cites Mata v. Avianca and Fletcher v. Experian, and was itself quoted in Douglas v. Deutsche Bank.

The obligation it engaged

Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the first clause Whiting v. City of Athens engages: the briefs attributed language to real decisions that does not appear in them. Clause 7, contemporaneous record, and Clause 8, disclosure, explain why the court's questions mattered. It asked who wrote the briefs, what tools were used and how citations were checked, and counsel offered no record and no answer. The refusal itself became an aggravating factor.

The lesson for an expert witness is practical. A tribunal may ask who drafted a report, whether any software contributed and how its sources were verified. An expert who keeps a dated log of drafting steps, tools and source checks can answer those questions in a page; one who cannot answer invites the inference the Whiting panel drew.

Sources

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (copy hosted by Justia) · March 13, 2026
  Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn., Nos. 24-5918/5919/25-5424, sanctions opinion

What could not be confirmed

The court made no finding on whether generative AI was used; counsel did not answer that question. The Justia file path uses docket 25-5425 although the opinion lists 25-5424. The later Douglas v. Deutsche Bank quotation of Whiting was not re-checked against the Douglas order for this entry. Fee amounts awarded and any Local Rule 46 proceedings were not located as of 2026-10-21.