An interesting decision was delivered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on March 30, 2026: Danuta Dec v. Markwayne Mullin, No. 25-2417. In it, the court delivered a reasonably basic analysis of judicial review for administrative decisions under legislative delegation to the executive. Interesting, but pretty mundane jurisdictional discussion.
The criticality is eight pages in, where the court notes 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(B)(v), and quotes:
"no court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by [the agency] regarding a waiver."
The appellant made a valiant effort to argue that it "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." But the court did not agree, returning to the tried and true Merriam-Webster and then Black's Law Dictionaries. So much for "is."
This has nothing to do with workers' compensation, per se, though it reminds us that words matter and dictionary definitions may be relied upon in the course of interpretation.
The point here is that the court concluded with section III of its opinion. This notes that the appellant's "brief cites two cases that do not exist and recounts an imaginary quotation. The court expressed a suspicion of "tell-tale signs of AI hallucinations."
The court asked appellant's counsel at oral argument, but she "could not explain these citations." She "denied using AI to prepare the briefs." She later wrote the court a letter, reiterated her inability to use AI, and confessed she "presumably copied and pasted" from another document that she has since not "been able to locate."
The court noted, "Whatever AI's future in litigation, our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations." The court admonished the attorney: "She should have been more careful."
It also reminded more broadly: "Opposing counsel also failed to catch these errors." It noted this "gives us pause, albeit to a lesser degree."
The court concluded by admonishing that the bar must recognize "the importance of honesty and vigilance in checking the accuracy of all citations and quotes." Failure to do so leads to "wasted time," "unnecessary work on a case within a case," and violates the lawyer's duty to "be considerate of the time constraints and pressures on the court."
The criticality of the opinion may be the court's acceptance of "I don't know." I recall a great many childhood disasters that led to parental inquiry as to cause. The "I don't know" defense I mounted time and again never bore fruit. It worked for Spicoli back in the day, but barely. (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Universal, 1982).
In a world of digital documents, how might one cut and paste a sentence but be unable to search their documents to find that sentence and document again? She "presumably copied and pasted that portion from another brief several months ago." How is that not found?
More important, however, is that the court does not care from where a lawyer derives fiction or falsity. It demands "honesty and vigilance in checking the accuracy of all citations and quotes." This applies to those from any source, including your parents, friends, AI chatbots, old briefs, and beyond. Source is not relevant; diligence is.
A serious burden? Absolutely. A clear burden? Indubitably. An attainable requirement? Undeniably.
The issue of hallucination is not difficult. It is a matter of fact. And it is an inherent obligation of the advocate on both sides of the dispute.