Federal · federal court of appeals · 2026

United States v. John Farris

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 3 April 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from 2 documents on file.

Case record · 6th Cir.

  1. Court. Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitCOURT
  2. Level. federal court of appealsLEVEL
  3. Date. 3 April 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. 25-5623DOCKET
  5. Judge. Eric L. Clay; Julia Smith Gibbons; Whitney D. HermandorferJUDGE
  6. Documents. 2 documents, 4 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Published opinion, 3 April 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages

3.130(5.3) (2022). That Howe’s briefs cited real legal authorities —as opposed to “hallucinations” featuring fictitious cases—does not absolve him. See Sanders v.

Cl. 163, 169 & n.8 (2025) (collecting cases with invented authorities). Howe’s failure to verify the artificial-intelligence output still resulted in the submission of false quotations and misleading legal arguments to this Court.

Docket entry 31, 3 April 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages

Docket text. PER CURIAM PUBLISHED OPINION. Eric L. Clay, Julia Smith Gibbons, and Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Circuit Judges.--[Edited 04/03/2026 by LAW] (LAW) [Entered: 04/03/2026 01:57 PM]

3.130(5.3) (2022). That Howe’s briefs cited real legal authorities —as opposed to “hallucinations” featuring fictitious cases—does not absolve him. See Sanders v.

Cl. 163, 169 & n.8 (2025) (collecting cases with invented authorities). Howe’s failure to verify the artificial-intelligence output still resulted in the submission of false quotations and misleading legal arguments to this Court.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from Federal, or from 2026. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on my files