Sixth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys for Fake Citations – What Does This Mean for Use of AI?

By Katie Brown on March 24, 2026 Posted in Recent Cases

The Sixth Circuit finally weighed in on the use of fake cases hallucinated by artificial intelligence. A panel recently sanctioned two Tennessee attorneys for a smorgasbord of misconduct during merits briefing, including citing fake cases. In Whiting v. City of Athens, — F.4th —-, Nos. No. 24-5918/5919, 25-5424, 2026 WL 710568 (6th Cir. 2026), the Court found that counsel had not only misrepresented the district court’s sanctions order, but had also cited over 24 fake citations, provided citations that lacked the language quoted in the brief, and provided citations that failed to support the cited proposition. 2026 WL 710568, at *1.

The panel awarded sanctions under Rule 38, holding the use of fake citations constituted “misconduct in arguing the appeal.” Id. at *2. It found that using fake citations went well beyond “sloppiness in drafting.” Id. at *1 n.1 & 2 (citation omitted). The panel also explained that its show cause to explain who wrote the briefs, whether generative AI was used, and how the briefs were cite-checked (among other things) did not violate either the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Id. at *6.

Statistics update – time to decision, reversal rates, and en banc petitions

By Colter Paulson on February 20, 2026 Posted in News and Analysis

It’s time for another update on the Sixth Circuit statistics people ask about all the time. The most important is how long a Sixth Circuit appeal will take. Other than questions about the political leanings of individual judges, this is the most-asked question from clients. The latest numbers from the Judiciary show the median time from the notice of appeal to decision is about nine months, which is consistent with the last few years. That’s pretty fast, and good enough to be the fourth-fastest circuit. The Second Circuit has been getting slower over the past few years, and is now officially the slowest circuit at fifteen months. The Eighth Circuit is the fastest at just under five months.

The next most important question is likelihood of reversal. And there is some news here. I was surprised to find that reversals in civil cases have, like the rates the year before, stayed under 11%. The circuit’s historical reversal rate (see here and here) in civil cases has been between 13 to 16%, usually at the upper end of that range. Other circuits range from 6% in the Tenth Circuit to 15% in the Fifth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit’s reversal rate in criminal appeals is 5%, on the other hand, which is between its historical norm of 5-7%. The Eighth Circuits continued its long-term trend of becoming the absolute worst place to appeal to overturn a criminal conviction, reversing in just 1.5% of the criminal cases. That circuit also boasts the lowest rate for prisoner petitions, reversing less than 1% of the time. It’s difficult in any circuit to win a reversal in a criminal case, but the Eighth Circuit goes the extra mile, and then some, to avoid doing so.

The circuit fielded about 400 en banc petitions last year and 150 panel rehearing-only petitions, which is less than in previous years (thanks to the clerk’s office for the numbers). That mean that judges decided nine rehearing petitions, in addition to writing two opinions, each week. Given that the circuit only grants en banc rehearing 3-4 times each year, that drives home the importance of petitions and briefs that get to the point right away. We want to catch the judge’s interest in the first or second paragraph.

A few other notes: The circuit continues to have a significantly smaller caseload than it had five years ago, while being fully staffed and having 16 senior judges to help with the load. It continues to use visiting judges sparingly.

Supreme Court to review Sixth Circuit interpretation of video privacy law

By Trane Robinson on February 2, 2026 Posted in Case Updates, News and Analysis, Recent Cases, Supreme Court

We learned last week that two panel decisions of the Sixth Circuit will receive another round of review. First, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Sixth Circuit in Salazar v. Paramount Global. Second, the Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Clippinger v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co. We preview both cases in a pair of posts.

First, Salazar is an intriguing case of statutory interpretation arising under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The question presented is whether the Act’s phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider” “refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.” The Sixth Circuit divided over that question, with Judges Nalbandian and Batchelder answering only “audio-visual content” and Judge Bloomekatz taking the broader view.

The Video Privacy Protection Act has an interesting origin story. Congress passed it after Judge Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing on his unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination in 1987. Adverse senators used the judge’s leaked video rental history against him. Congress, in response, sealed off that material from disclosure. The Act “creates civil liability for any ‘video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.’” 18 U.S.C. §2710(b)(1).

En banc Sixth Circuit passes on antitrust indirect seller case

By Katherine von Schaumburg and Mary Walser on January 30, 2026 Posted in Case Updates, En Banc Watch, Learned Sixth, News and Analysis

This blog recently covered an interesting antitrust case that upheld the Supreme Court’s bright line rule established in Illinois Brick: indirect buyers are barred from pursuing money damages under the federal antitrust laws. The Sixth Circuit has now decided against rehearing the case en banc.

The denial, however, drew two dueling statements. Judge Bush agreed with the denial, but suggested that the case “may warrant the [Supreme] Court’s review to clarify the parameters of Illinois Brick” regarding indirect sellers in four ways. Judge Murphy, author of the panel opinion (along with Sutton & Kethledge) responded to each point.

Sixth Circuit Weighs Second Amendment Rights of Illegal Immigrants

By Gerald Sharpe on January 19, 2026 Posted in Case Updates, Recent Cases

Do illegal immigrants have Second Amendment rights? The Sixth Circuit just said no, though the panel couldn’t agree on why. Authorities found three firearms when searching the home of Milder Escobar-Temal, a Guatemalan citizen who entered the U.S. illegally over a decade ago and who was suspected of abusing his 14-year-old stepdaughter. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. from possessing firearms. Escobar-Temal argued this provision violates his Second Amendment rights. A Sixth Circuit panel unanimously rejected that claim, but the judges splintered on their reasoning.

The Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms,” District of Columbia v. Heller held, is an “individual right.” Fourteen years after Heller, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen created a two-step methodology for analyzing Second Amendment claims.

Judge Murphy, Originalism, and Friedrich August von Hayek

By Colter Paulson on January 12, 2026 Posted in Learned Sixth, News and Analysis

The Sixth Circuit completed a hat-trick when the NYU’s Classical Liberal Institute invited Judge Murphy to give its 19th annual Friedrich A. von Hayek Lecture, in honor of the famous economist and philosopher. As we discussed a few years ago, Judge Kethledge delivered the 15th Hayek Lecture, discussing administrative law, and Chief Judge Sutton delivered the 13th Hayek Lecture, which covered technology and federalism.

Judge Murphy’s lecture is a thoughtful defense and careful explanation of originalism, especially as contrasted what he called the “policy approach” of the Legal Realist movement. He argued that Hayek would likely have been drawn to modern originalism far more than Posnerian pragmatism. Interestingly, Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit also discussed Hayek and originalism in an earlier lecture in the same series. Others have written on the subject, as Hayek’s legal and economic approach has enjoyed a resurgence of popularity.

In possible Supreme Court preview, Sixth Circuit holds Michigan’s talk-therapy ban unconstitutional

By Trane Robinson on December 30, 2025 Posted in Case Updates, News and Analysis, Recent Cases, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

The Sixth Circuit just held that Michigan’s talk-therapy ban infringes free speech. Pending at the Supreme Court is the constitutionality of Colorado’s equivalent law. That case, Chiles v. Salazar, was argued in October. And the Sixth Circuit panel could fairly foreshadow the justices’ upcoming decision. Judge Kethledge and Judge Larsen formed the majority with Judge Bloomekatz dissenting.

Conversion talk-therapy is controversial. The opinion explains that detractors argue the therapy is “ineffective and harmful,” while the plaintiff therapists say that it helps patients “become more comfortable with their biological sex and thus decrease the dissonance between their gender identity and biological sex.” The therapy involves no medication or physical intervention, just “spoken words and nothing more.” But Michigan passed a law banning all therapy that includes counseling “to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity” other than to assist someone in a “gender transition.”

Sixth Circuit requires proximate causation for “indirect seller” antitrust claims

By Katherine von Schaumburg and Mary Walser on December 17, 2025 Posted in Case Updates, Learned Sixth, News and Analysis, Recent Cases

A recent Sixth Circuit decision by Judge Murphy highlighted that sometimes the decisive antitrust issue is identifying who was harmed and where they sit in the distribution chain. In Academy of Allergy & Asthma et al. v. Amerigroup Tennessee, Inc, the court affirmed that a provider’s federal antitrust claims were too indirect to recover under the Sherman Act.

The plaintiff, United Allergy, was a service provider to primary-care physicians. Physicians contracted with United Allergy and paid a flat rate for allergy-testing services provided to the physicians’ patients, and then the physicians would submit reimbursement requests to insurers. United Allergy alleged that, facing a deluge of allergy testing and treatment reimbursement claims, Tennessee-based insurers initiated a boycott of United Allergy through coordinated audits, denied claims, restrictive reimbursement policies, and pressure on physicians to abandon United Allergy altogether. As a result, United Allergy claimed it lost profits and many patients lost access to allergy treatments.

Circuit judges offer brief writing tips

By Trane Robinson on December 10, 2025 Posted in Uncategorized

It is not every day that sitting judges give lawyers specific instruction on how to write their briefs. Judge Kethledge wrote a helpful primer about effective writing a while back. This week, Chief Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom from the Eleventh Circuit offer their own nugget of free advice: Begin briefs with an introduction. We appreciate it and while opinions on this point may differ, we fully agree.

The judges wrote a letter to a member of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules that suggested an amendment to Appellate Rule 28, the rule covering the contents of briefs. They recommend a new subsection that encourages briefs to include an introduction. The rule currently is silent. Their proposal would make introductions permissive not mandatory (though certainly encouraged). The judges suggest “a short introduction that briefly frames the case, identifies the key legal issue(s), and recommends a resolution.”

Their suggestion to amend the rule doubles as a writing instructional. Judges Pryor and Newsom liken a “a good introduction” to an “elevator pitch.” A successful intro should avoid the technicalities of an argument section and read the way “a lawyer might explain” the case to family “over Thanksgiving dinner.” They observe that “savvy lawyers often use” introductions to “great effect.” And the judges give guidance on how to do just so: A good introduction “briefly introduces the dispute, tees up the key issues, and explains why they should be resolved” favorable to your client. These reputed judges’ ringing endorsement of introductions, we think, is reason enough to include them (even if they count toward the word limit).

Introductions, they admit, can help the judge recall the case “right before he or she takes the bench.” That’s a good reason to write them.

Sixth Circuit Grants Mandamus in FirstEnergy Discovery Dispute

By Trane Robinson on December 3, 2025 Posted in Case Updates, News and Analysis, Recent Cases

An “an assortment of legal and regulatory actions” has spun off from the high-profile corruption prosecution and conviction of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder. Back in 2016, the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation designed to bail out energy giant FirstEnergy from dire financial straits. Speaker Householder accepted a hefty campaign bribe to see the legislation through—and the Sixth Circuit somewhat recently affirmed his conviction.

Those episodes triggered investigations into FirstEnergy by the SEC, Ohio Attorney General, and Ohio Public Utilities Commission. Shareholders initiated securities class actions of their own. FirstEnergy, meanwhile, took internal action: Its “board hired Squire Patton Boggs LLP to investigate the allegations in the Householder complaint. And FirstEnergy hired [other counsel] to investigate the allegations and to advise the company about how to handle the subpoenas.” The securities-fraud class called for those investigation reports in discovery. The district court obliged the plaintiffs’ demand.