Artificial intelligence created "hallucinatory" case citations, and the fake citations were not caught during proofreading.

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives. Please ...

On Friday, the Cato Institute and I filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in Noem v. Doe, a case where the Trump Administration is trying to terminate parole status for over 500,000 legal immigrants from ...

Law professor Dan Epps joins the Supreme Court Brief podcast to discuss why he thinks the case over President Donald Trump's tariffs is a test of jurisprudential consistency for the conservative ...

OMAHA, Neb. (WOWT) - Figuring out ways to harness the power of artificial intelligence is being challenged by every industry. What works, what doesn’t and what’s ethical. The Nebraska Supreme Court ...

It’s the age-old question: Does the Supreme Court decide its cases based on rank partisanship rather than legal principles? Of course, this raises the obvious follow-up: Which cases are the important ...

In an apparent first, a California state appellate panel has sanctioned a Pacific Palisades lawyer and reported him to the bar for submitting AI-generated fabrications in his opening and reply briefs.

Do amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs matter in Supreme Court cases? As someone who sometimes writes and signs on to amicus briefs, I often wonder if they are worth the time and effort.