On January 21, 2026, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a definitive order amending the Rules of Trial Procedure to govern the use of generative AI by judicial officers. This mandate, which went into effect on February 2, 2026, positions Indiana as a national leader in codifying “human-in-the-loop” requirements for the bench.
The order is a direct response to a surge in AI-related legal complications, including a reported 518 cases in early 2026 where “hallucinated” AI content was submitted to U.S. courts.
The 2026 Judicial AI Mandate
The Supreme Court’s order creates a formal “duty of verification” for trial judges, ensuring that while technology can assist in administration, it cannot supersede human judgment.
Mandatory Citation Verification: Judges are strictly required to independently verify the existence and accuracy of any legal citation generated by an AI tool. This is designed to prevent the “hallucination” of fictitious case law that has plagued several high-profile filings in 2025.
Non-Delegable Adjudication: The order clarifies that the “constitutional duty of adjudication”—understanding intent, motive, and human behavior—cannot be delegated to an algorithm.
Confidentiality Protections: Judges are prohibited from entering sensitive case data or confidential documents into public, open-source AI platforms (like ChatGPT), citing extreme risks to judicial privilege and privacy.
Ethics Alignment: The mandate aligns with the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 1.2 (promoting public confidence) and Rule 2.5 (competence and diligence).
Recent Case Precedents in Indiana
The new rules follow a string of “AI failures” in Indiana courts during the 2025–2026 cycle:
| Case | Incident Detail | Court Action |
| Wilcox v. Gingrinch (2026) | Pro se appellants cited a “substantial number” of non-existent cases. | Issues waived; Judge May issued a stern caution on verification. |
| Donovan v. Clark Cnty. (2025) | Petitioners admitted to using AI for briefs containing fictitious citations. | Sanctions considered; public warning issued on “unacceptable” hallucinations. |
| Attorney Sanction (2025) | An attorney was sanctioned $6,000 for repeated use of AI-generated citations. | Penalty reduced only after the attorney attended “Responsible AI” training. |
“AI must be kept at our feet and should not be allowed to sit on our head.” — Justice Dipankar Datta, reflecting the sentiment of the 2026 State of the Judiciary regarding technology’s subordinate role.
