A federal judge in Michigan has criticized the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) for citing a nonexistent court decision in a legal filing related to an immigration detention case. This incident, which suggests the citation was generated by artificial intelligence, was highlighted in court documents.
Judge’s Concerns
Chief U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the Western District of Michigan addressed this issue in a three-page order on July 16. The case involved a habeas corpus petition from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee, who challenged the government’s automatic stay of a bond order.
Judge Jarbou, appointed by President Trump, eventually dismissed the case as moot. This decision came after the stay expired and the government agreed that Izzeddin Ahmed Abdulgahffar Daghra could be released with a $35,000 bond.
AI-Generated Citation
In her order, Judge Jarbou focused on a specific citation in a DOJ filing. Government lawyers referenced a supposed Sixth Circuit ruling stating that federal courts cannot “reweigh the evidence underlying a bond decision or second-guess the Immigration Judge’s discretionary judgment.” The citation, attributed to a case called Taylor v. Hott, does not exist.
This issue arises amidst ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration. Federal judges have become increasingly vigilant and, at times, critical of actions taken by the government.
Obligations of AI Use
The judge emphasized that attorneys employing AI tools must diligently verify their work before submitting documents to the court. She criticized the use of AI-generated legal research, pointing out that it has led to numerous cases involving fabricated authorities. Courts are frequently encountering briefs containing “fake, hallucinated cases” that are nonexistent.
It should be obvious that any attorney who uses AI must scrupulously review its work product to ensure that the cited cases exist and that the citations accurately and fairly represent the underlying case law,”Judge Jarbou wrote.
While she did not impose sanctions, Judge Jarbou insisted that the government ensure future filings do not include nonexistent legal authorities.
Previous Incidents
The Michigan case is not the first instance where the DOJ has faced scrutiny over AI-generated legal filings. In April, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II in North Carolina reprimanded former federal prosecutor Rudy Renfer. Renfer had admitted using generative AI in a court brief that included false quotations, incorrect citations, and mischaracterizations of case law.
Leave a Reply