US state and federal AI court instruments: what 268 require, September 2026

In the United States, the SafeLegalAI Regulation Tracker holds 268 state and federal instruments on AI in courts and legal practice as of 16 September 2026. The record is no longer a short list of federal standing orders: it is 124 federal records and 144 state records, with individual judges, bankruptcy courts, district courts, state supreme courts, local trial courts and bar ethics bodies choosing different answers to the same filing question.

The core finding is that the United States has no single AI rule for court filings as of 16 September 2026. Instead, 268 instruments distribute the work among certification, disclosure, verification, judicial-use policies, ethics opinions and some express decisions not to require disclosure.

Key findings

1. As of 16 September 2026, the dataset contains 268 US state and federal instruments: 124 federal and 144 state records, including 157 standing orders, 35 court rules, 28 guidance documents, 19 ethics opinions, 14 policies and 7 reports.
2. As of 16 September 2026, 254 of the 268 records are in force, 8 are proposed, 3 are superseded and 3 are withdrawn.
3. As of 16 September 2026, 215 records are verified: false; 191 of those records carry a us-court-ai-orders provenance source, meaning they were coded from document text by a pipeline and have not yet been editor-read.
4. As of 16 September 2026, the largest coded requirement combination is disclosure plus certification plus verification: 62 records. Another 27 require disclosure plus certification, and 21 require certification plus verification.
5. As of 16 September 2026, the tracked federal records are concentrated at district-court level: the script classifies 102 records as district instruments, 5 as bankruptcy instruments and 3 as circuit instruments.
6. As of 16 September 2026, state instruments are concentrated in three channels: 54 trial or local court records, 46 state supreme court or statewide judiciary records and 29 state bar or professional-regulator records.
7. As of 16 September 2026, Texas, California and New York account for 37, 36 and 30 records respectively; those counts reflect where instruments were located and coded, not how often AI is misused in those states.
8. As of 16 September 2026, incident rows link to only 2 of the 268 regulation records, through 4 incident-to-regulation links. That sparse linkage is a data finding: the incident tracker usually records the case outcome, not the rule that might have applied before filing.

Why this question

US lawyers cannot answer the AI-filing question by reading one national rule. A lawyer may file in a federal district where a judge requires a certificate, a bankruptcy court where a general order requires an attestation, a state court where a local rule requires first-page disclosure, or a state supreme court system whose policy says AI use need not be disclosed. The answer changes by court and sometimes by judge.

The first edition of this page, published on 16 July 2026, was a 484-word, 8-entry representative federal sample. That was still useful, but it had become too narrow by September. On 6 September 2026, a Regulation Tracker import added 190 new US court AI instruments from the us-court-ai-orders dataset; as of 16 September 2026, 191 records carried that provenance. Those records changed the page from a federal sample into a state-and-federal report.

This report stays inside the United States. It does not repeat the worldwide comparison in AI in court filings: who must abstain, declare, certify or verify. The worldwide piece asks how countries differ. This report asks what the US instrument file itself contains, document by document, and what a risk officer should know about the unverified tier before relying on the count.

Method and data

The report uses the SafeLegalAI Regulation Tracker records in safelegalai-site/src/content/regulations/*.yaml where jurisdiction is us-federal or us-state. The public export is /regulation/documents.json; the category definitions are at /regulation#categories; editorial treatment of regulation records is described at /editorial-standards#regulation. The country record is src/content/countries/us.yaml, exposed through the US regulation pages.

Each regulation record carries a title, issuing body, jurisdiction, type, status, appliesTo, requirements, current version date and source URL. The query script in the run log reads the YAML with parseYaml from safelegalai-site/scripts/lib/content.mjs, filters the US federal and US state records, and produces every table in this report. The script also reads safelegalai-site/src/content/incidents/*.yaml to count incident rows whose relatedRegulations point to these instruments.

The report uses the frozen working tree as of 16 September 2026, including untracked YAML visible in git status. The resulting baseline is 268 instruments as of 16 September 2026. The run log records the script and output so the baseline can be re-run or compared with a later export.

The report’s court-level buckets are derived from body, region, title and slug text. They are descriptive buckets, not official categories. Federal bankruptcy courts are separated from federal district courts because bankruptcy rules cite Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 rather than Civil Rule 11. State bar ethics opinions are not court rules, but they are kept in the same US file because they tell lawyers how to treat AI output, confidentiality, fees and tribunal duties.

The verified flag is a main result. A record with verified: false is not being treated as wrong. It means a pipeline coded the record from a public document, but an editor has not re-opened and read it source by source. As of 16 September 2026, 215 of the 268 US records are in that state. Of those, 191 carry a us-court-ai-orders provenance source. The tables count them because they are in the tracker, but the prose marks this tier whenever it matters.

The report excludes three things. It does not count ordinary Rule 11 decisions as regulation records unless the Regulation Tracker has a regulation YAML record for the court-authored instrument. It does not infer a filing rule from a court sanctioning a defective brief. It does not treat private trackers or law-firm posts as operative instruments, though they can help locate a document.

For primary-source checking, this research run re-opened and read 18 instruments in full. The source list is in Appendix B. Where a live court page blocked automated access or moved a document, the run used an archive copy or recorded the failure; it did not bypass a CAPTCHA.

The federal patchwork: circuit, district, judge and bankruptcy instruments

The federal file is led by district-level records. As of 16 September 2026, the script classifies 102 of the 124 federal records as district instruments, 5 as bankruptcy instruments, 3 as circuit instruments and 14 as federal other or other. That count includes many judge-level standing orders and court-procedure documents, not a national rule.

The Fifth Circuit is the cleanest appellate example because it considered a circuit rule and declined to adopt it. The proposed Rule 32.3 would have required a certification tied to generative AI use in briefs. The court’s decision not to adopt the rule states, at page 1:

“I used AI” will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.

That sentence is not a national rule, but it is the appellate answer the dataset records for the Fifth Circuit: no special circuit certificate, existing filing duties still apply. The record is coded as withdrawn, not in force.

At district level, the earliest federal certificate remains Judge Starr’s N.D. Texas certificate. The former live judge page no longer opened during this run, so the tracker now uses an archived court .doc certificate. The Texas ENRLS sampling PDF also reproduces the text. The certificate says, page 2:

no portion of any filing in this case will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence … will be checked for accuracy

The Starr record is therefore still accurately coded as certification plus verification. The current tracker record now uses the archived official certificate because the former live txnd.uscourts.gov judge page returned 404 during this check.

Judge Baylson’s E.D. Pennsylvania order is the disclosure-plus-certification model. The tracker record now points to the court’s own PDF of the order, dated 6 June 2023, which reads:

disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing, and CERTIFY, that each and every citation … has been verified as accurate.

That supports the tracker fields: requirements: [disclosure, certification, verification], status: in-force, and date: 2023-06-06.

Magistrate Judge Fuentes’s N.D. Illinois record illustrates why old summaries must be re-read. The 2026 PDF available from the court was image-based, so this run OCR’d the relevant page. The current standing order points counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court policy and Rule 11. It says, page 17:

The Court will continue to presume that the pre-existing Rule 11 certification is a representation by filers … that they themselves have read and analyzed all cited authorities.

The current tracker record now reflects that change: it is coded as certification plus verification, and its version note says the current PDF no longer requires parties to disclose generative AI use or name the tool.

The Eastern District of Texas moved the issue into local rules. Local Rule CV-11(g), read on the court’s official page, says:

All litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence technology.

Local Rule AT-3(m) adds that a lawyer who uses generative AI “must review and verify all content” to comply with Rule 11, Local Rule AT-3 and other practice standards. The tracker record us-txed-court-2023-local-rules-generative-ai is coded as verification rather than disclosure, which matches the official pages read in this run.

Bankruptcy courts adopted parallel orders early. The Northern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court general order was signed on 21 June 2023 and applies to attorneys and self-represented litigants. It says:

Artificial intelligence systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States.

The Western District of Oklahoma Bankruptcy Court general order, effective 1 September 2023, requires an attestation identifying the AI program, identifying the specific portions of text and certifying accuracy and confidentiality. The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court order takes the same shape for filings prepared in any aspect with generative AI; the order says it applies to “all filers — whether attorneys or self-represented litigants.”

Those bankruptcy examples matter because they show that the certificate model did not stay as a single judge’s rule. It became a court-level bankruptcy form in several districts, while other federal courts chose a softer verification rule or decided not to adopt a special rule.

State supreme courts and statewide judiciary policies

The state file has more kinds of issuer than the federal file. As of 16 September 2026, the script classifies 46 records as state supreme court or statewide judiciary instruments, 54 as state trial or local court instruments and 29 as state bar or professional-regulator records. State supreme courts have acted most often on judicial-branch use and lawyer ethics, while local trial courts often act on filings.

Illinois is the clearest statewide no-disclosure policy. The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective 1 January 2025, authorises AI use by litigants, attorneys, judges, clerks and court staff if legal and ethical standards are met. It states, page 2:

Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading.

The same paragraph keeps accountability with the user. The policy says attorneys, judges and self-represented litigants are accountable for their final work product and must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it. That supports the tracker’s permissive and verification coding.

Delaware acted on judicial officers and court personnel rather than attorney filings. The current tracker record points to the operative Appendix O-1 policy rather than the one-page press release. The official policy states, section 3:

Authorized Users may not delegate their decision-making function to Approved GenAI.

It also says users remain responsible for accuracy, need working knowledge before use, must comply with law and policy, and may not input non-public information into non-approved GenAI. That supports competence, confidentiality and verification. No source-URL correction is needed in the current working tree.

California adopted a court-system rule for judicial officers and court staff. Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80 are not a statewide attorney filing-disclosure rule. Rule 10.430 requires each California court that permits generative AI use by court staff or judicial officers to adopt a policy by 15 December 2025. Rule 10.430(d)(3) requires policies to:

take reasonable steps to verify that the material is accurate, and to take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output

Standard 10.80 covers adjudicative-role use by judicial officers. It uses “should” rather than “must,” including a guideline that judicial officers should not enter confidential or non-public information into a public generative AI system and should take reasonable steps to verify AI material. The Regulation Tracker correctly treats the California instrument as a judicial-use rule, not a lawyer filing certificate.

New York took a different statewide route for filings. The archived administrative order adding Part 161 says that AI use in preparing court papers should not be prohibited if ordinary submission duties are met. It then states, section 161.3:

attorneys and parties should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI

But Part 161 also includes an Appendix A model rule that a court may adopt. The model rule requires careful review and says signing the paper certifies that review. That makes New York hard to reduce to one label. Statewide, it rejects mandatory disclosure; locally, it encourages an optional model rule that can require verification-by-signature.

Connecticut chose a direct rule for filed documents. The Judicial Branch news page quotes new Practice Book section 4-9, effective on publication in the 23 June 2026 Connecticut Law Journal. It states:

any person who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence

The same page says filing represents good-faith, diligent efforts to comply. Connecticut is therefore coded as certification plus verification, with sanctions including nonsuit or default for failure.

Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals adopted Rule 1.17 on 18 February 2026. The live site did not respond within the fetch window, but the Wayback copy opened. Rule 1.17(A) says:

the party, or their counsel, shall ensure that any portion of the document produced or modified by generative AI … has been verified as accurate

Rule 1.17(C) lists waiver of affected issues, striking a non-compliant document and contempt as possible sanctions. This is an appellate criminal rule, not a civil statewide rule.

Florida’s statewide rule is narrower than many summaries suggest. The Supreme Court of Florida amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 in May 2026. The operative rule is a signature representation that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited; the text itself does not ask which AI tool was used. The Regulation Tracker codes Rule 2.515 as certification plus verification, not disclosure. That is why the report separates it from local Florida circuit orders that may ask more.

Bar ethics opinions: verification, confidentiality, supervision and fees

State bar and professional ethics records make up 29 of the 268 US instruments as of 16 September 2026. They rarely impose a court-filing disclosure rule by themselves. Their common function is to say that AI does not loosen competence, confidentiality, candour, supervision or fee duties.

Texas Opinion 705, coded at tx-professional-ethics-opinion-705, is a clear example. It says lawyers should understand generative AI before using it, protect confidential information, supervise use and bill only for time or expenses that may properly be charged. Under oversight and supervision, the opinion states:

lawyers are responsible for the work product they submit regardless of who (or what) does the original research and drafting.

The Texas ethics opinion is not a court rule, and it does not create a statewide filing certificate. It tells lawyers to check local rules and standing orders because some courts prohibit or require disclosure while others do not.

Florida Ethics Opinion 24-1, read from the Florida Bar PDF after the landing page returned 403, says lawyers may use generative AI but must protect confidentiality, provide competent services, avoid improper billing and comply with lawyer-advertising limits. Its summary states:

Lawyers remain responsible for their work product and professional judgment and must develop policies and practices to verify that the use of generative AI is consistent

That supports the tracker coding for consent, confidentiality, verification, supervision and competence. It does not support a Florida Bar rule requiring a lawyer to disclose every AI use to a court.

Kentucky Ethics Opinion E-457, issued 15 March 2024, frames the court-filing duty as a yes-or-no question. The opinion asks whether an attorney using AI must review court rules and review AI-assisted submissions for accuracy. The answer is:

Yes.

The short answer is backed by a longer statement: lawyers must review court rules and procedures as they relate to AI and review all submissions that used generative AI to confirm the accuracy of the content. Kentucky has no statewide court AI filing rule in the dataset; the ethics opinion directs lawyers to the rules of the court in which they file.

North Carolina’s 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, adopted 1 November 2024, says AI use is permitted if the lawyer acts competently, securely and with supervision. On pleadings, Inquiry 4 asks whether AI changes the obligations that attach to a lawyer’s signature. The answer is:

No. A lawyer may not abrogate her responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct by relying upon AI.

The North Carolina record is coded with disclosure because the opinion says client notice may be required when a lawyer delegates substantive work to AI. That is client disclosure, not a general court-filing disclosure rule.

These opinions align with ABA Formal Opinion 512, but this run could not read the ABA PDF directly because the site returned a Cloudflare challenge. The report therefore treats ABA 512 as a dataset-linked baseline rather than a primary quotation in this edition. That is a limit, not a workaround.

What the instruments require

The requirements table is the most direct way to read the 268 records. As of 16 September 2026, the largest combination is disclosure plus certification plus verification, with 62 records. The next is disclosure plus certification, with 27 records. The third is certification plus verification, with 21 records. The result is a certificate-heavy file, but the certificate can mean different things: no AI was used; AI was used and checked; all citations exist; or the signer made diligent efforts to comply with a generative-AI rule.

Disclosure appears in many combinations, but it is not the majority position once ethics opinions and judicial-use policies are included. Some disclosure rules ask for a first-page statement. Some ask for the tool and how it was used. Some require disclosure only if ordered by the court. Some, such as New York statewide and Illinois Supreme Court policy, say no disclosure should be required as a default.

Certification is the word that needs the most care. Judge Starr’s certificate is an either-or AI certificate. Judge Baylson’s certificate is paired with a disclosure that AI was used. Connecticut’s rule treats filing as a representation of compliance. Florida’s statewide rule is a signature representation that legal authorities exist and are accurately cited; it does not mention AI in the operative text quoted by the worldwide comparison. Treating all four as the same kind of certificate would lose the legal difference.

Verification is the common floor across the documents this run read. The Fifth Circuit declined a special rule but reminded parties that filings must be checked for truthfulness and accuracy. The Eastern District of Texas rules require review and verification under Rule 11 and local rules. The Texas, Florida, Kentucky and North Carolina ethics opinions each put responsibility on the lawyer. Illinois and California require review of AI output where courts or court users rely on it. The language changes, but the human-check duty does not.

Prohibition is present but narrower than a casual reading suggests. Some instruments bar AI from certain court-staff or judicial tasks, some bar entering non-public court information into unapproved or public AI systems, and a smaller set of local rules or orders bars use for filings or for categories of filings. This report does not call any court the strictest; the dataset supports only requirement enums and document text, not a ranking.

How the record changed from 2023 to 2026

The US record starts in 2023 with judge-level and bankruptcy-court orders. Judge Starr’s certificate, Judge Fuentes’s standing order, Judge Baylson’s order and the Texas bankruptcy general order all arrived within weeks of the Mata v. Avianca sanctions order. The form was reactive: prevent invented authorities by making a human attest to review.

By late 2023 and 2024, the question moved to court-wide and ethics channels. The Fifth Circuit proposed a special rule and then did not adopt it. State bars began issuing ethics opinions, including Florida, Kentucky, New York City, Pennsylvania, Texas and others. Those opinions did not usually tell courts what to demand on filing. They told lawyers that AI output is their work product and that ordinary duties still apply.

In 2025, state judicial branches wrote policies for their own use. Illinois said AI use should not be discouraged and disclosure should not be required in pleadings, while preserving accountability for final work product. Delaware adopted an interim policy for judicial officers and personnel. California adopted Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80, requiring local court policies where courts allow generative AI. These instruments focus on court-side use as much as lawyer filings.

In 2026, more statewide filing rules appeared. Oklahoma adopted Rule 1.17 for criminal appeals in February. Florida amended Rule 2.515 in May. New York Part 161 took effect in June and rejected mandatory disclosure while providing a model local rule. Connecticut section 4-9 became effective on 23 June. The pattern is not a simple move toward disclosure. It is a move toward signer responsibility and court-specific implementation.

The year table shows that build-out. As of 16 September 2026, current-version years in the dataset are 14 records in 2023, 47 in 2024, 70 in 2025 and 137 in 2026. That does not mean every instrument was first adopted in that year, because the table uses the current version date. It does show the active revision and adoption load in 2026.

How often the incident tracker cites these instruments

The incident tracker contains 635 rows as of 16 September 2026, with 476 provisional US rows. Yet only 2 US regulation records are linked from incident rows through relatedRegulations, producing 4 incident-to-regulation links. The linked regulation records are Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, linked from al-hamim-v-star-hearthstone and salloum-v-department-of-transportation, and Mezu v. Mezu, linked from benjamin-v-state and johnson-v-nationstar.

That linkage is low because most incident rows record sanctions or warnings after a defective filing, not the preventive instrument that governed filing in that forum. It may also reflect the age of the field: many provisional rows were imported from court decisions rather than hand-linked to court rules. The low number should not be read as proof that the instruments had no practical effect. It shows that the current data model does not yet connect most incidents to the rules that might have applied.

Withdrawn, superseded and proposed instruments

The 268-record file is not all in-force law. As of 16 September 2026, 8 records are proposed, 3 are superseded and 3 are withdrawn. The most important withdrawn record is the Fifth Circuit’s Rule 32.3 proposal, because it is a public decision not to adopt a special AI rule at circuit level. That withdrawal sits beside state instruments that decided no disclosure should be required.

The 8 proposed records are: California State Bar proposed AI rule amendments; a federal civil-rule suggestion on Rule 11 and AI; proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707; the court-record version of proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707; Hawaii Supreme Court AI committee final report; Eastern District of Michigan proposed local-rule amendments; and the South Dakota proposed civil and criminal AI local rules.

California SB 574 is outside the 268 regulation-record count in this report unless or until it is represented as a regulation YAML record in the US court AI file. It is still a watch item for the same subject. LegInfo showed the bill as an active enrolled bill at the Governor on 16 September 2026, with the history entry “Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.” on 9 September 2026. California Constitution article IV, section 10(b)(2) gives the 30 September rule for bills in the Governor’s possession on or after 1 September in the second year of the biennium.

Timeline

Date	Instrument	What changed
30 May 2023	N.D. Tex. Starr certificate	Either no generative AI, or AI-drafted language checked by a human using print reporters or traditional databases.
31 May 2023	N.D. Ill. Fuentes standing order	Current PDF relies on Illinois policy and Rule 11; tracker now codes certification plus verification.
6 Jun 2023	E.D. Pa. Baylson order	Disclosure that AI was used plus certification that citations were verified.
21 Jun 2023	N.D. Tex. Bankruptcy GO 2023-03	Bankruptcy-court verification order for attorneys and self-represented litigants.
25 Jul 2023	W.D. Okla. Bankruptcy GO 23-01	Attestation identifying program, AI-generated portions, accuracy check and confidentiality.
Jun 2024	Fifth Circuit proposed Rule 32.3	Circuit decided not to adopt the proposed AI certification rule.
1 Jan 2025	Illinois Supreme Court policy	Statewide policy: AI use authorised if legal and ethical duties are met; no pleading disclosure required.
1 Feb 2025	Texas Opinion 705	Ethics opinion on competence, confidentiality, verification, supervision and fees.
1 Sep 2025	California Rule 10.430	Courts allowing generative AI must adopt use policies by 15 December 2025.
18 Nov 2025	S.D. Cal. Bankruptcy GO 210	Effective 1 January 2026: attestation or certification for filings prepared with generative AI.
18 Feb 2026	Oklahoma Rule 1.17	Criminal appellate documents produced or modified by generative AI must be verified.
28 May 2026	Florida Rule 2.515 amendment	Signature rule changed to require representations about accuracy and existence of authorities.
1 Jun 2026	New York Part 161	Statewide policy against mandatory disclosure, with optional model local rule.
23 Jun 2026	Connecticut Practice Book section 4-9	Independent verification rule with certification by filing.
9 Sep 2026	California SB 574	Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.; Governor watch runs to 30 September under Cal. Const. art. IV, section 10(b)(2).

What to watch

Watch the eight proposed records first. Federal Rule of Evidence 707 remains a proposed evidence rule, not a filing rule, and the Standing Committee process determines whether any federal evidence text returns in revised form. The South Dakota and Eastern District of Michigan proposals would add court-level local rules if adopted. The California State Bar proposal would change professional-conduct duties, not court filing rules by itself.

Watch California SB 574 until 30 September 2026. As of 16 September 2026, LegInfo listed the bill at the Governor and the history showed presentation on 9 September. If signed or allowed to become law, the Regulation Tracker should decide whether to add it as a regulation record and whether its filing, arbitration and judicial-officer provisions belong in this US instrument report.

Watch the verified tier. The main data-quality issue is not that the file is small; it is that it grew faster than editor review. The 215 unverified records as of 16 September 2026 are useful for seeing the shape of US court action, but they should not be used as individually verified citations until an editor has opened the source.

Watch incident links. If the orchestrator later links provisional incident rows to the court rules or standing orders that applied, the incident-to-regulation table will change from 2 linked records and 4 links. That would let a later edition ask whether certification courts produce fewer defective filings, a question this edition cannot answer.

Appendix A — data tables

All tables are generated from the query script in the run log. Counts are as of 16 September 2026.

A1. Summary counts

Measure	Count
US regulation records	268
Federal records	124
State records	144
In force	254
Proposed	8
Superseded	3
Withdrawn	3
verified: false	215
Records with us-court-ai-orders provenance	191
Incident rows read for links	635
Provisional US incident rows	476
Regulation records linked from incidents	2
Incident-to-regulation links	4

A2. Records by type

Type	Records
standing-order	157
court-rule	35
guidance	28
ethics-opinion	19
policy	14
report	7
judgment-guidance	3
practice-direction	3
consultation	1
statute	1

A3. Records by status

Status	Records
in-force	254
proposed	8
superseded	3
withdrawn	3

A4. Records by court or issuer level

Level	Records
district	102
state trial/local court	54
state supreme/statewide judiciary	46
state bar/professional	29
other	15
federal other	13
bankruptcy	5
circuit	3
state legislature/statute	1

A5. Records by state or region

State/region	Records
Texas	37
California	36
New York	30
(federal/no state)	17
Illinois	14
Georgia	12
Pennsylvania	12
Florida	9
Colorado	8
Ohio	8
Connecticut	5
Oklahoma	5
Alabama	4
Hawaii	4
Michigan	4
New Mexico	4
Arizona	3
Louisiana	3
Maryland	3
Minnesota	3
Missouri	3
New Jersey	3
North Carolina	3
Oregon	3
Virginia	3
West Virginia	3
Arkansas	2
Delaware	2
Iowa	2
Kansas	2
Montana	2
South Dakota	2
Utah	2
Alaska	1
District of Columbia	1
Guam	1
Idaho	1
Indiana	1
Kentucky	1
Massachusetts	1
Mississippi	1
Nebraska	1
Nevada	1
New Hampshire	1
Rhode Island	1
South Carolina	1
Wisconsin	1
Wyoming	1

A6. Records by current-version year

Year	Records
2023	14
2024	47
2025	70
2026	137

A7. Requirement combinations

Requirements combination	Records
certification + disclosure + verification	62
certification + disclosure	27
certification + verification	21
competence	21
permissive	17
competence + confidentiality + consent + supervision + verification	12
disclosure	11
verification	11
competence + confidentiality + supervision + verification	9
competence + confidentiality + verification	9
disclosure + verification	6
certification	6
certification + confidentiality + disclosure + verification	5
certification + disclosure + prohibition + verification	4
confidentiality + disclosure	4
prohibition	4
certification + record-keeping + verification	3
certification + confidentiality + disclosure	2
competence + confidentiality + disclosure + supervision + verification	2
confidentiality + prohibition	2
disclosure + prohibition	2
permissive + verification	2
supervision + verification	2
certification + confidentiality	1
certification + confidentiality + disclosure + record-keeping + verification	1
certification + confidentiality + verification	1
certification + prohibition + verification	1
competence + confidentiality + consent + permissive + supervision + verification	1
competence + confidentiality + consent + verification	1
competence + confidentiality + disclosure + verification	1
competence + confidentiality + permissive + verification	1
competence + confidentiality + prohibition + verification	1
competence + confidentiality + supervision	1
competence + disclosure	1
competence + disclosure + supervision	1
competence + permissive + verification	1
competence + record-keeping + risk-classification	1
competence + verification	1
confidentiality	1
confidentiality + disclosure + prohibition + verification	1
confidentiality + disclosure + record-keeping + verification	1
confidentiality + disclosure + supervision + verification	1
confidentiality + permissive + prohibition	1
confidentiality + supervision + verification	1
disclosure + record-keeping + verification	1
risk-classification + supervision	1
risk-classification + verification	1

A8. Applies-to combinations

Applies-to combination	Records
lawyers + litigants	78
lawyers + litigants + parties	53
firms + lawyers	26
lawyers + parties	26
court-staff + judges	17
lawyers	13
all	12
parties	8
all + lawyers + litigants	5
court-staff + judges + lawyers + litigants	5
judges	4
court-staff + judges + lawyers	3
litigants + parties	3
all + litigants	2
court-staff	2
court-staff + judges + parties	2
firms + judges + lawyers	2
firms + lawyers + providers	2
judges + lawyers	2
court-staff + firms + judges + lawyers	1
court-staff + judges + lawyers + litigants + parties	1
judges + lawyers + parties	1

A9. Verification and provenance

Field	Records
verified: false	215
verified: true	53
us-court-ai-orders source	191
Other source	77

A10. Regulations linked from incident rows

Regulation	Incident links
Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone	al-hamim-v-star-hearthstone; salloum-v-department-of-transportation
Mezu v. Mezu	benjamin-v-state; johnson-v-nationstar

Appendix B — sources

Primary instruments and official sources read or attempted in this run:

• Fifth Circuit, Court Decision on Proposed Rule 32.3 (June 2024): PDF; tracker record
• Judge Starr, N.D. Texas, Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements (archived official .doc, 30 May 2023): archive; tracker record
• Texas ENRLS, A Sampling of AI Court Orders (used to recover moved Starr text and Baylson order text): PDF
• Judge Baylson, E.D. Pennsylvania, Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (6 June 2023): PDF, paed.uscourts.gov; tracker record
• Magistrate Judge Fuentes, N.D. Illinois, Standing Order for Civil Cases (PDF, OCR read; file modified 4 March 2026): PDF; tracker record
• Eastern District of Texas, Local Rule CV-11(g): official page; Local Rule AT-3(m): official page; tracker record
• U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, General Order 2023-03 (21 June 2023): PDF; tracker record
• U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Oklahoma, General Order 23-01 (25 July 2023): PDF; tracker record
• U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California, Bankruptcy General Order No. 210 (18 November 2025): PDF; tracker record
• Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence (effective 1 January 2025): PDF; tracker record
• Delaware Judicial Branch, Interim Policy on the Use of GenAI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel, Appendix O-1: PDF; operating-procedures page; tracker record
• State Bar of Texas, Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 (February 2025): official page; tracker record
• Judicial Council of California, Rule 10.430: official page; Standard 10.80: official page; tracker record
• Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (19 January 2024): landing page returned 403; PDF; tracker record
• Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457 (15 March 2024): PDF; tracker record
• North Carolina State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 (adopted 1 November 2024): official page; tracker record
• Connecticut Judicial Branch, Practice Book section 4-9 NewsLog (24 June 2026): official page; tracker record
• New York Unified Court System, Part 161 administrative order (archived official PDF): archive; model-rule page, archived: archive; tracker record
• Supreme Court of Florida, In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, SC2026-0673 (28 May 2026): PDF; tracker record
• ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024): direct ABA PDF returned 403; archive used for alignment check: archive; tracker record
• Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 2026 OK CR 7, Rule 1.17: live page timed out; archive; tracker record
• California SB 574 status page: LegInfo; California Constitution article IV, section 10: LegInfo

Appendix C — Changes to this report

2026-09-16: second edition; first edition (published 16 Jul 2026, 484 body words, 8-entry representative federal sample) replaced after the 6 Sep 2026 us-court-ai-orders import added 190 new instruments; 191 current records carry that provenance.