Federal Judge Upholds AI Disclosure Rule in Court Filings, Rejects First Amendment Challenge

On Friday, Judge Nina Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued a decision in Hessert v. Street Dog Coalition, denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a standing order requiring disclosures of generative AI use in court filings.

The plaintiff had argued that the court’s Standing Order improperly compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, violated due process and equal protection rights, and encroached upon work product protections. Judge Wang rejected these claims, stating that the arguments were "without merit."

The challenged standing order mandates that every filing must include an AI Certification, signed by all contributors, confirming whether generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) was used in preparing the document. If AI was utilized, each signer must certify that:

• Any AI-generated language was reviewed for accuracy by a human;
• All legal citations reference actual, non-fictitious cases or authorities.

Judge Wang distinguished this requirement from impermissible compelled speech, noting that courts routinely mandate disclosures in filings—such as certificates of service, word count certifications, or funding disclosures—without triggering First Amendment scrutiny. She wrote:

"It is unquestionable that in the courtroom itself, during a judicial proceeding, whatever right to 'free speech' an attorney has is extremely circumscribed. An attorney may not, by speech or other conduct, resist a ruling of the trial court beyond the point necessary to preserve a claim for appeal."

The judge acknowledged that while some hypothetical compelled speech mandates (e.g., requiring attorneys to include the Pledge of Allegiance in briefs) might raise constitutional concerns, a rule requiring AI use disclosures is permissible. She further noted that the plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary lacked merit.

Additional Ruling: Sanctions Warning Stands

In a related matter, Judge Wang declined to strike a prior order from Magistrate Judge Neureiter. The plaintiff had sought to remove a warning from Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation, which cautioned that suing multiple individual board members or officers of a nonprofit without a plausible basis for individual liability could result in sanctions. Judge Neureiter advised the plaintiff to "carefully evaluate the risks" before proceeding against individual defendants.

The plaintiff argued that the sanctions threat was premature and unsupported by the record. Judge Wang disagreed, stating there was no basis to strike the warning. She noted that if the plaintiff objected to Judge Neureiter’s advisement, he could address it through proper procedural channels.