Skip to content

Regulation Tracker · Country · Americas

United States

Extensivecommon lawupdated 2026-10-05verified 2026-09-16

As of 16 September 2026 the United States has no nationwide court rule on AI. Federal regulation is layered: ABA Formal Opinion 512 supplies the ethics baseline, individual district judges impose certification by standing order, and the Administrative Office issued judiciary-wide interim guidance on 31 July 2025. Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 was returned for study.

As of 2026-10-07, the United States has 3 binding rules, official guidance in 11 categories, 1 proposal and 1 position set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover disclosure of AI use in filings, duty to verify AI output, self-represented litigants. In 4 categories we found nothing; in 0 the position is not yet determined.

How to read this page
  • Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
  • Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
  • Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
  • Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
  • Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
  • Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.

The rules, category by category

Disclosure of AI use in filings

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-16

No judiciary-wide rule. Binding only where an individual judge has issued a standing order: Judge Starr (N.D. Tex.) requires a signed certificate; Judges Baylson (E.D. Pa.), Graham (S.D. Ohio) and Berger (M.D. Fla.) require disclosure or certification. Judge Fuentes (N.D. Ill.) required disclosure from May 2023 but the current order (PDF dated 4 Mar 2026) drops it and relies on Rule 11. The Fifth Circuit rejected a circuit-wide certification rule in June 2024.

Duty to verify AI output

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-16

Rule 11(b) certification plus ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 Jul 2024) require verification of AI output before filing. Federal courts have held that submitting fabricated authorities violates Rule 11 even where the underlying proposition is correct, and that counsel must personally read every citation.

Self-represented litigants

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-16

Binding only in courts whose standing orders extend to self-represented parties: Judge Starr's certification applies to pro se filers as well as counsel; Judge Fuentes's current order relies on the Rule 11 certification for all filers. There is no judiciary-wide guidance for litigants in person.

Judges' use of AI

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-16

The Administrative Office's AI Task Force issued interim guidance judiciary-wide on 31 July 2025 (not published in full). It directs judiciary users to review and independently verify AI output, cautions against delegating core judicial functions, and asks courts to define approved tasks and tools.

AI barred from deciding cases

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-16

No binding prohibition. The July 2025 interim guidance cautions against delegating core judicial functions, including decision making and case adjudication, and advises extreme caution on novel legal questions. Individual judges (for example Judge Neals, D.N.J.) have adopted chambers policies barring clerk and intern AI drafting.

Bar guidance on generative AI

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-16

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 Jul 2024) is the national ethics baseline. Sector regulators have added their own: USPTO practice guidance (11 Apr 2024) and DOJ EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-40 (8 Aug 2025) for immigration proceedings.

Courts' own AI deployment

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-16

The AO established an advisory AI Task Force in early 2025 and issued interim guidance on 31 July 2025 covering use, procurement and security of AI tools; courts are encouraged to define locally approved tools and tasks. The September 2025 judiciary Strategic Plan calls for a formal AI governance framework.

Arbitration and ADR

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-16

The AAA-ICDR issued Guidance on Arbitrators' Use of AI Tools (2025): AI must support not replace the arbitrator's judgment, and use must be disclosed where it materially affects the process or reasoning. JAMS adopted dedicated AI Disputes Rules in 2024 barring delegation of decision-making to AI.

Consumer AI legal services

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-16

Unauthorised practice of law is regulated exclusively by the states; no federal rule, ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services was found as of 16 September 2026. Federal consumer-protection enforcement against deceptive AI legal-services claims has proceeded under the FTC Act rather than any AI-specific rule.

Data protection and legal AI

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-16

There is no federal comprehensive data-protection statute and no federal DPA guidance addressed to AI in legal services; confidentiality of client data is handled through professional conduct rules (ABA Formal Opinion 512) rather than privacy regulation.

Horizontal AI statute

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-16

No federal AI statute and no risk classification of justice-sector uses. The Executive Order of 11 December 2025, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, seeks to preempt state AI laws and created a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force (announced 9 Jan 2026); it imposes no obligations on legal practice.

Mandatory AI training

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-16

No federal mandatory AI training requirement. Continuing legal education is set state by state; the state matrix on this page has no training column, so state technology or AI CLE requirements are not scored in this record.

Sub-national rules

Where states, provinces or courts set their own rules. Cells show the status in each category the record covers.

UnitDisclosure of AI use in filingsJudges' use of AIAI-generated evidenceClient data in AI toolsBilling for AI workBar guidance on generative AISanctions for AI misuse
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Official documents recorded for United States (259)

Court incidents on the record in United States

all incidents →

Cite this page

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "United States" (updated 2026-10-05, verified 2026-09-16), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/us (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

SafeLegalAI is a research publication, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by SafeLegalAI. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.