Court AI orders
Who requires what, and where we read it.
20 jurisdictions with a published order, rule or policy on generative AI. For each one: the requirement in plain words, the source document, and the day someone opened that document and read it. If a source could not be opened, it is not in the table.
This tracker is descriptive, not legal advice. It records what a document says, not what you should do about it, and it is not a substitute for reading the order that governs your own division. Orders change, and a judge in your court may have one that is not published where we could find it.
| Jurisdiction | Court | Order or policy | Date | What it requires | Last checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State courts and bars | |||||
| California | State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct | Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law | 2026 revision, replacing the November 2023 version | ||
| Connecticut | Connecticut Judicial Branch | The Judicial Branch's use of artificial intelligence | policy update January 2024; committee report July 2024 | ||
| District of Columbia | District of Columbia Bar, Legal Ethics Committee | Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters | published April 2024 | ||
| Georgia | Supreme Court of Georgia and the Judicial Council of Georgia | Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: report submitted | 3 July 2025 | ||
| Illinois | Supreme Court of Illinois | Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence | effective 1 January 2025 | ||
| Iowa | Supreme Court of Iowa | Order adopting Chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules: Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools | announced 21 July 2026, rules effective 1 January 2027 | ||
| New Jersey | Supreme Court of New Jersey | Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers | 24 January 2024 | ||
| North Carolina | Superior Court, Judicial District 25 (Cabarrus County) | Revised Administrative Order 25-09 In Re: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Superior Court Proceedings | filed 8 December 2025 | ||
| South Carolina | Supreme Court of South Carolina | Interim Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence | 25 March 2025 | ||
| Texas | Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas | Opinion 705: generative artificial intelligence under the Texas Disciplinary Rules | February 2025 | ||
| Virginia | Supreme Court of Virginia | Supreme Court of Virginia Rules for Generative AI Use | effective 6 June 2024, last amended 7 May 2025 | ||
| Federal courts | |||||
| California | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | Using AI Tools in Your Case (guidance for self-represented litigants) | no date published on the page | ||
| Federal | U.S. Court of International Trade | Order on Artificial Intelligence (Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden) | signature date not legible in the posted scan | ||
| Florida | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division | Standing Order of Judge Moe Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence | 27 May 2026 | ||
| Iowa | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa | Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance and FAQs for litigants | no date published on the page | ||
| Missouri | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri | Artificial Intelligence notice to filers | no date published on the page | ||
| New Mexico | U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico | Bulletin on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales) | 9 May 2025 | ||
| Oklahoma | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma | General Order 26-7: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Filings | 9 September 2026 | ||
| Pennsylvania | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Michael M. Baylson) | Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson | 6 June 2023 | ||
| West Virginia | U.S. District Court, Northern District of West Virginia | Standing Order In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Review Criminal Discovery | 16 June 2026 | ||
No order in the tracker matches that.
Found an order we have wrong, or one we have missed? Tell us onthe demo form and say so in the last box. Corrections are the point of publishing this.
What the five words mean here
- DisclosureThe source asks a filer to say that AI was used, and usually to say where.
- CertificationThe source asks for a signed statement, sometimes in words it prescribes, sometimes under penalty of perjury.
- Verification dutyThe source puts the accuracy of the output on the filer, without asking for a form.
- ProhibitionThe source forbids something outright: a tool, a category of data, or a practice.
- NoneThe source publishes a position, a committee or an inventory, and asks nothing of a filer.
The pattern worth noticing is that disclosure and verification are not the same ask. A court can be satisfied by a sentence saying a tool was used, and still be handed a fabricated citation. The orders that bite are the ones that ask whether each authority was checked. That is the worka citation check actually is, and whybetter retrieval does not end it.