Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
The Advocates for Human Rights and L.H.M. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
·United States District Court for the District of Minnesota·US-FEDNoted, no consequenceprovisional
On 2026-03-26, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected defendants’ heightened-injunction argument after identifying misquotations and miscites in their brief and receiving unsatisfactory explanations at the hearing. Counsel submitted a brief with false quotations. The remedy followed the citation failures in that filing.
- Court
- United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
- Date
- 2026-03-26
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Defendants' briefing misread and misquoted authorities about preliminary injunction standards.
- Outcome
- Noted, no consequence
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-07
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12395-AK (D. Mass. 2026)2026-09-25 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · SanctionsIn Massachusetts federal court, Judge Angel Kelley sanctioned California-barred counsel under Rule 11 for fictitious and misattributed citations across three briefs. His firm must pay the Enterprise defendants' fees and…
- Chirece C. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 25-11554 (E.D. Mich. 2026)2026-09-24 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · FineIn Michigan federal court, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford fined a Social Security claimant's lawyer $500 for AI-generated fictitious citations she admitted not checking. The same lawyer had been sanctioned in July…
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)2026-09-22 · United States Court of International Trade · PendingIn the U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge M. Miller Baker ordered a Chinese exporter to substantiate brief statements that Commerce took part in a Canadian antidumping case. If it cannot, it must show cause why it…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “The Advocates for Human Rights and L.H.M. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security”, safelegalai.com/tracker/the-advocates-for-human-rights-and-l-h-m-v-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-e (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.