DOJ Now Citing Fake AI-Generated Cases To Keep ICE Detainees Locked Up

from the this-must-not-happen-in-a-free-society dept

You’d think that watching multiple lawyers get caught red-handed using AI to file briefs full of made-up citations would cause everyone in the legal profession — especially prosecutors — to double-check their own. You would, of course, be wrong. And the latest offender is not just some random lawyer. It’s the DOJ itself, which cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case to argue that an ICE detainee shouldn’t be able to challenge a stay that prevented him from posting a bond that had already been granted, thereby leaving him in detention.

This story hits on two different threads we’ve been covering over the last few years separately. Having them collide somehow makes both worse.

We’ve covered plenty of cases where lawyers for one party (or both, or sometimes judges) are misusing AI to do their writing for them, generating fictitious cases in support of whatever argument they’re seeking to make. This is troubling on many levels, because one of the things any lawyer is supposed to do before submitting anything to a court is check the citations. Historically that has been to make sure the cases cited haven’t been overruled. In these cases, not only is that not happening, they’re literally putting in cases that don’t exist, citing precedents that are completely fictitious.

Our other line of stories touched on here is how ICE and the DOJ have been stomping all over detainees’ basic constitutional rights.

This is one of many cases in which lawyers for a detainee have filed a habeas petition — and it’s a clean example of those two threads colliding in practice. I’ll let Judge Hala Y. Jarbou summarize the basics of what happened:

Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee, initiated this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) An immigration judge had granted Petitioner a bond of $35,000, but the bond order was stayed pending appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i) (2025). Petitioner argued that the 90-day automatic stay provision in § 1003.19(i) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and sought an order requiring the Government to allow him to post bond. While this lawsuit was pending, the automatic stay of Petitioner’s bond order expired. The Government now represents that the bond order is back in effect and Petitioner will be released if he posts the $35,000 bond. (Status Report, ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the habeas petition is moot and dismisses it without prejudice.

Already frustrating enough that the 90-day “automatic stay” that the detainee was challenging ended before the actual case could be decided, making the whole thing moot.

But… there’s something else the judge had on her mind. The DOJ appeared to have a totally fabricated citation in an earlier filing:

There is one additional issue in this case that the Court must address. In the Government’s response to the Court’s initial order to show cause, it stated the following:

More recently, the Sixth Circuit has reiterated that § 1226(e) bars challenges that “ask the court to reweigh the evidence underlying a bond decision or second-guess the Immigration Judge’s discretionary judgment.” See Taylor v. Hott, 724 F. App’x 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2018) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review IJ’s bond denial where petitioner challenged flight-risk determination) . . . .

(Gov’t’s Resp. 9, ECF No. 5.) The cited case, Taylor v. Hott, is not located at the identified page of the Federal Appendix. Indeed, page 387 is contained within a different opinion—Atkins v. CGI Techs. & Sols., Inc., 724 F. App’x 383 (6th Cir. 2018)—which is about commercial arbitration, not immigration bond determinations. In its research, the Court was unable to identify a Sixth Circuit case with the caption Taylor v. Hott, or any federal case containing the quoted language. Thus, it seems this citation was likely produced by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”).

It is already bad enough when you have a fabricated citation in a civil case between two private parties. But here we’re literally talking about a case involving someone’s freedom. And the government is filing AI-generated fake cases?!?

We should be livid. But the judge lets them off with a little slap on the wrist and a “please don’t do this again”:

It should be obvious that any attorney who uses AI must scrupulously review its work product to ensure that the cited cases exist and that the citations accurately and fairly represent the underlying case law. The duty of candor towards this tribunal demands no less.

Although the Court will not presently impose sanctions for this conduct, it goes without saying that the Government must ensure its future filings with this Court do not include nonexistent case law

And, yes, judges tend to be fairly restrained in issuing sanctions, often giving misbehaving lawyers many more chances than they probably deserve before rushing to punishment. But, again, this was someone’s freedom on the line. And the DOJ literally directly — whether intentionally or not — misled the court with a precedent that doesn’t exist. That should never happen.

We all know the DOJ is having trouble staffing lawyers. Over 10,000 lawyers have left the federal government since Donald Trump came back into office. They’re offering large bonuses for jobs that lawyers used to deliberately take massive pay cuts to get on their resume. Pretty much everyone agrees it’s a staffing crisis, to the point that earlier this year an apparently exhausted Assistant US Attorney, Julie Le, asked an angry judge to find her in contempt just so she could get some sleep:

Attorney Julie Le was representing the government at a hearing over ICE’s failure to follow court orders and immediately release people that it had wrongfully detained. When Judge Jerry Blackwell asked why the agency is not complying, Le said that the government was “overwhelmed” by the legal challenges to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, and that trying to get ICE to comply with court orders has required nonstop work for an office depleted by resignations. 

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.” 

Given that kind of work environment, is it really any surprise that the few remaining DOJ lawyers would turn to hallucinating AI tools to “generate” their legal filings?

But if you’re starting to feel any ounce of sympathy for the DOJ here, let’s be clear: fuck that. If the DOJ can’t do their fucking job they shouldn’t be throwing people into jails, detainment centers, concentration camps, or anything of that nature. If they want to go around fighting habeas petitions, maybe don’t lock up so many people without any ounce of due process. And if they want to keep people detained then hire enough lawyers to handle the government’s case load.

And if that’s too difficult because good lawyers have no interest in working for a fascist regime that is stomping all over basic fundamental freedoms in every direction, well, maybe work on that rather than locking innocent people up with no due process. Donald Trump’s administration put this DOJ in this position and there’s simply zero excuse for judges letting the DOJ get away with this sort of absolute bullshit.

Judges should be issuing sanctions left and right. They should be reporting lawyers to ethics committees and the relevant bar associations. They should be demanding that the government actually obey the fucking law, and not deny anyone their rights.

Want to stop the DOJ from locking people up with fictitious cases? Start issuing actual consequences to those lawyers and anyone else at the DOJ who had anything to do with this.

Filed Under: ai, ai hallucinations, doj, hala jarbou, ice detentions, izzeddin daghra, julie le