loupe.legal

Court rules on AI in filings

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Judge Nina Y. Wang. Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings.

In force when read In force when read on 26 September 2026.

  • Say that generative AI was used
  • Certify that it was checked
  • Who signs: All individuals who contributed to the drafting.

The court’s words

“Every filing shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing. To the extent that generative AI was used in any drafting of the filing, each individual must certify that any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority.”

Quoted from the court’s own document, read on 26 September 2026. Read it at the source.

What it asks of the person who signs

  • Say that generative AI was used

    or, where the order asks it, that it was not.

  • Certify that it was checked

    in the filing: that the content and the citations were verified.

  • Who signs

    All individuals who contributed to the drafting.

Applies to: Every filing, whether or not AI was used. Where it goes: In every filing.

The statement, if one is called for

The order asks for words of its own. With the blanks filled in from your answers, they read:

AI CERTIFICATION

Generative artificial intelligence ([name the AI tool]) was used in drafting this filing. Each of the undersigned certifies that any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority.

If no generative AI was used: “Each of the undersigned certifies that generative artificial intelligence was not used in preparing this filing.”

On the check page Loupe drafts the statement for this court from the parts you tick, for you to read and sign: what it says is your choice and your responsibility. The order in force on the day is what counts; read it at the source before relying on this page.

Check the filing first

Paste the brief or drop the file, and Loupe looks up every citation in the published record: whether the case exists, whether it is the case the filing names, whether the pin cite falls inside the opinion; statutes, regulations, court rules and links too. It doesn’t generate anything, and what it can’t settle it marks “not verified”, never clean.