US H.R. 7394: Justice in Forensic Algorithms Act of 2024

Operative sections

• §2(b): no trade-secret evidentiary privilege would withhold relevant evidence in U.S. criminal proceedings.
• §2(f): defendants must receive reports and access to executable copies, source code, instructions, files, and data for computational forensic software used in the case.
• §2(g): computational-forensic-software evidence is admissible only if tested and defense testing claims are waived.

Text

Any results or reports resulting from analysis by computational forensic software shall be provided to the defendant, and the defendant shall be accorded access to both an executable copy of and the source code for the version of the computational forensic software ... In any criminal case, evidence that is the result of analysis by computational forensic software is admissible only if the computational forensic software used has been submitted to the Computational Forensic Algorithm Testing Program ...

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in the federal courts

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence (Judge Wendy W. Berger)M.D. Fla. (Berger) · 2026-04-02

  Standing order of 2 April 2026 by Judge Wendy Berger (M.D. Fla.). Every filer must certify that no generative AI was used, or that a human reviewed any AI-drafted language for accuracy and that all citations are real and accurate. Non-compliant filings may be stricken; repeated failures risk dismissal with prejudice, default or referral.

• Standing Order on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge James L. Graham)S.D. Ohio (Graham) · 2025-10-21

  Standing order of 21 October 2025 by Judge James Graham (S.D. Ohio). A filing prepared with generative AI must carry a declaration naming the platform and identifying the AI-assisted content by page, section or paragraph, and certifying that the filer reviewed the sources and verified the submission's accuracy under Rule 11(b).

• ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence ToolsABA · 2024-07-29

  The American Bar Association's first formal ethics opinion on generative AI, issued 29 July 2024, applies the Model Rules to lawyers across the United States. It covers competence, confidentiality with informed client consent for self-learning tools, candor to tribunals, supervision of staff and vendors, and fees. It is permissive with cautions and has no successor opinion.

• Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the USPTOUSPTO · 2024-04-11

  Guidance published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on 11 April 2024 reminding practitioners that existing signature, candor and confidentiality duties apply when AI tools are used to prepare filings. Practitioners must review AI-assisted documents before submission, must not disclose client information to tools without safeguards, and remain responsible for accuracy.

• Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge BaylsonE.D. Pa. (Baylson) · 2023-06-06

  A standing order issued 6 June 2023 by Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Any attorney or self-represented party who used generative AI in preparing a filing must disclose that use in a clear statement and certify that every citation to law or the record has been verified as accurate. It applies to all his cases.

• Standing Order for Civil Cases (generative AI provision), Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. FuentesN.D. Ill. (Fuentes) · 2023-05-31

  Standing order for civil cases before Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes, Northern District of Illinois. The 31 May 2023 revision required parties to disclose generative AI use and name the tool; the current order (PDF dated 4 March 2026) drops that duty, refers counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court AI policy and relies on the Rule 11 certification.

Decisions on the record

• Reyes v. BaileyUnited States District Court for the District of New Mexico · 2026-08-28

  The District of New Mexico denies self-represented plaintiff Charles Reyes’s Rule 11 motion. The court holds defendants reasonably said Reyes may have fabricated a case citation because Reyes admitted he miscited a case in his amended complaint, and the remaining alleged misrepresentations did not support sanctions.

• Booker v. The Kroger Co.United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 2026-08-28

  The Northern District of Georgia sanctions plaintiff’s counsel in Booker v. Kroger after finding fake, false and misleading case authorities and an untruthful denial of AI use. The order imposes an $8,000 court fine and requires documentation of completed ethics and technology CLE.

• Williams v. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport BoardUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Texas · 2026-08-27

  The Northern District of Texas dismisses Williams’s Section 1983 claims and warns that plaintiffs’ qualified-immunity briefing relied on nonexistent or inapposite cases. The court identifies Dawkins, Iko and Yates problems and cautions that generative-AI misrepresentations of law may trigger Rule 11 sanctions.

• James v. ConleyUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 2026-08-27

  The Southern District of Florida recommends denying Miami-Dade County’s Rule 11 motion against James on safe-harbor grounds but says counsel relied for months on unverified AI-generated IACP Training Keys. The recommendation calls the Keys AI hallucinations and recommends referral of four signing attorneys.

• Adams v. Matrix Providers Inc.United States District Court for the District of Colorado · 2026-08-27

  The District of Colorado denies Adams’s post-judgment motions and addresses counsel’s response to a show-cause order over a nonexistent Ricks v. Starbucks citation and other inaccurate authorities. The court admonishes counsel about possible AI-assisted research errors and separately imposes a $1,000 sanction for rule violations.