US H.R. 7997: Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026

Operative sections

• §2(a): Congress would receive analysis, review, and recommendations on AI speech-to-text and automatic speech recognition in the U.S. judicial system.
• §2(b): the Attorney General, through NIJ, must establish the AI Research and Oversight in Courts Task Force.
• §2(e): the task force final report must address AI-created or modified court records and effects on legal-proceeding transcripts.

Text

The purpose of this Act is to provide Congress with—(1) an analysis of any issues or benefits related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; (2) a review of the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; and (3) any recommendations based on the analysis and review. ... The task force shall submit ... a final report on ... whether a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology affects the quality or accuracy of a transcription of a legal proceeding.

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

  A standing order issued 2 April 2026 by Judge Wendy Berger of the Middle District of Florida governing AI-assisted filings. Counsel and self-represented parties are responsible for the accuracy of any AI-generated content; misrepresenting its accuracy can lead to sanctions up to dismissal or default judgment and referral to the state bar or the court's grievance committee.

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

  A standing order issued 21 October 2025 by Judge James Graham of the Southern District of Ohio. Any filing prepared with generative AI must be accompanied by a declaration disclosing that AI was used, identifying the platform, describing which content was AI-generated, and confirming that a human verified every citation and factual assertion before filing.

• 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.

• 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.

• Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Brantley Starr)N.D. Tex. (Starr) · 2023-05-30

  The first judge-specific generative AI order in the United States federal courts, issued by Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas on 30 May 2023. Every attorney and self-represented litigant must certify either that no generative AI was used or that any AI-generated content was checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional databases.

• Interim guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in the federal judiciaryAO of the US Courts

  Interim guidance developed by the Administrative Office's AI Task Force and distributed across the United States federal judiciary on 31 July 2025. It permits experimentation with AI while directing users to independently verify all AI-generated output, cautioning against delegating core judicial functions, and asking each court to define locally approved tools and tasks. The text itself is not published.

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.