How AI Misled Two US Courts and the Urgent Case for AI Rules in Judging
By Tristan Marot, Norton Rose Fulbright, August 25, 2025
Federal courts in New Jersey and in Mississippi have recently withdrawn published rulings after lawyers discovered glaring factual and legal errors that appear to trace back to unvetted generative‑AI research. The two episodes unfolded within hours of each other at the end of July 2025 and have prompted parties to demand explanations and safeguards.
In In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation things took an abrupt turn after the judge’s first opinion, dated 30 June 2025, was posted. That opinion denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but defence counsel quickly spotted fundamental errors. Several authorities were quoted for propositions they did not contain, other case outcomes were reported the wrong way round, and two statements were attributed to the CorMedix defendants that were never alleged. Counsel set out the problems in a 22 July letter and expressly stopped short of asking for reconsideration; instead, they invited the Court to “consider whether amendment or any other action should be taken.”
Less than twenty‑four hours later, on 23 July, the judge entered a short text order withdrawing the opinion and its accompanying order in their entirety, directing the clerk to remove both from the docket, and promising that a substitute opinion would follow. The order records that the original materials “were entered in error,” but offers no public explanation.
