AI Citation Sanctions Roundup, Week 7: Tenth Circuit Finds Two Fake Cases, FLRA Finds 35 of 42 Citations Defective
Short answer: in the window from October 16 to October 29, 2026, the Tenth Circuit caught two cases that don’t exist and a false Goldberg quote in an immigration brief, and it quoted circuit precedent calling such filings “a divergence from the standards expected.” The FLRA found that 35 of 42 agency citations were “fictitious, erroneous, or irrelevant.” No sanction came from either.
We pick up here from the point where our week six roundup ended, covering decisions dated October 16, 2026 or later. For that window, the AI Hallucination Cases database listed three U.S. lawyer entries. Two of them we could read in full and check against an official or Justia copy, and those are the two we cover.
What did the Tenth Circuit decide in Chilingarian v. Blanche?
A panel of Circuit Judges Matheson and Phillips, with District Judge Urias sitting by designation, issued an order and judgment on October 20, 2026 in Chilingarian v. Blanche, Nos. 25-9591, 25-9592, and 25-9593 (10th Cir.). The petitioners were challenging Board of Immigration Appeals decisions that vacated a grant of Convention Against Torture protection, and they argued that due process required a remand so they could testify.
In the court’s words, “Petitioners cite to two cases that do not exist”: “Sameeh v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1150, 1155 (10th Cir. 2006)” and “Naranjo Garcia v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1177, 1189 (9th Cir. 2021).” It went on: “Adding to the brief’s deficiency is the Petitioners’ inclusion of a quote they attribute to Goldberg that does not appear in that opinion.” The case cited in the brief was Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-68 (1970).
On the merits, the panel treated the due process argument as waived because it was inadequately briefed, and it saw no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision to sever the cases. The disposition reads: “We deny the petitions for review.”
What did footnote 6 say about AI and the reply brief?
According to footnote 6, “These errors appear to be the product of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”).” The court said it has “repeatedly cautioned” that “[a]ttorneys who choose to use [AI] must be willing to also apply ‘actual intelligence in its execution,'” quoting Lichfield v. Kubler, 183 F.4th 1248, 1271 (10th Cir. 2026).
In its response brief, the government had pointed out one of the errors. Quoting Lichfield, the panel said it was “further concerned that the [r]eply [b]rief did not appropriately remedy the misstatements of law,” and it observed: “Nor has counsel filed a Notice of Errata, as counsel did in Lichfield.” It ended with Lichfield’s sentence: “Submission of a brief containing fabricated or hallucinated citations is a divergence from the standards expected of attorneys appearing before this court.” There was no sanction, no referral and no order to show cause.
The decision “is not binding precedent,” though it can be cited “for its persuasive value.” The takeaway: after opposing counsel spots a bad cite, staying quiet only makes things worse.
What did the FLRA find in HHS and NTEU, 74 FLRA No. 87?
The Federal Labor Relations Authority decided U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Treasury Employees Union, 74 FLRA No. 87, Case No. 0-AR-6103, on October 21, 2026, ruling on HHS exceptions to an arbitrator’s telework award. Chairman Kiko and Member Wagner decided the case, and Member Arrington did not participate.
Footnote 44 reads: “The Agency cites ‘U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 913th Air Wing, 57 FLRA 469, 472 (2001),’ which does not exist.” The Authority went on to identify “nine more citations that the Agency provides are entirely fictitious.” Its count: “Overall, twenty-two of the exceptions brief’s twenty-nine footnotes” and “thirty-five of the forty-two legal or record citations” are “fictitious, erroneous, or irrelevant.” It added: “Based on the nature and scope of these errors, it appears that the Agency may have used a generative artificial-intelligence (AI) tool in drafting its brief.”
Why did the FLRA deny the exceptions instead of sanctioning the agency?
The Authority handled the bad citations as a lack of support. Under section 2425.6(e)(1), exceptions can be denied when “[t]he excepting party fails to raise and support a ground.” It rejected the nonfact argument “as unsupported” and wrote: “Therefore, we deny the essence exception.”
The Authority stopped short of banning AI. Instead it warned that “AI continues to present significant risks of error” and wrote: “Therefore, parties should take steps to verify the accuracy of any AI-generated material.” Federal News Network reported the same result and the same warning on its own.
The rule text behind this week’s decisions
| Provision | Operative language | Source read |
|---|---|---|
| Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) | “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies” | law.cornell.edu |
| Fed. R. App. P. 46(c) | “A court of appeals may discipline an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule.” | law.cornell.edu |
| Fed. R. App. P. 40(d)(1) | “any petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 14 days after judgment is entered”; 45 days in a civil case where a party is “a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity” | law.cornell.edu |
| 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1) | “The excepting party fails to raise and support a ground as required in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, or otherwise fails to demonstrate a legally recognized basis for setting aside the award” | law.cornell.edu |
| Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(2) | “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law” | law.cornell.edu |
| Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) | “support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority” | courts.ca.gov |
| 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1) | Conduct is frivolous if “it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” | law.cornell.edu |
Drafting-ready text: a notice of errata correcting citations
The Chilingarian panel pointed out that nobody filed a notice of errata. When a bad cite comes to light, file one quickly and check the circuit’s rules on corrected briefs:
NOTICE OF ERRATA TO [OPENING/REPLY] BRIEF OF [PARTY] [Party], through undersigned counsel, gives notice of the following corrections to its [brief] filed [DATE] (Doc. [__]): 1. Page [__]: the citation to [CITATION AS FILED] is withdrawn. [The proposition is supported by [CORRECT CITATION], which counsel has read.] OR [The proposition is withdrawn.] 2. Page [__]: the quotation attributed to [CASE], [PIN CITE], does not appear in that opinion. The quotation marks are removed and the sentence is revised to read: "[TEXT]." 3. Counsel has re-checked every other authority in the brief against the decision itself. [A corrected brief is lodged herewith.] Dated: [DATE] /s/ [NAME] [FIRM, ADDRESS, BAR NO.]
Worked example: the rehearing clock after Chilingarian
The judgment was entered on Tuesday, October 20, 2026. Under Rule 26(a)(1), you “exclude the day of the event that triggers the period” and “count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.”
- Day 0 is Tuesday, October 20, which is excluded.
- Under the 14-day default, October 21 counts as day 1, which makes day 14 Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
- For the 45-day period, check Rule 40(d)(1)(C), since the respondent is the Attorney General in an official capacity. Day 45 lands on Friday, December 4, 2026, with Veterans Day and Thanksgiving both counted.
- Check the last day: December 4 is neither a weekend nor a legal holiday, so the deadline does not roll forward. Rule 40 was amended effective December 1, 2024, and absorbed what used to be Rule 35.
Cross-jurisdiction contrast, limited to what we verified today
Federal courts of appeals. There are three distinct tracks: forfeiting the issue under Rule 28(a)(8)(A); damages and costs for a frivolous appeal under Rule 38, following a separately filed motion or notice; and discipline under Rule 46(c). Chilingarian relied on the first track alone.
Federal agencies. Rather than Rule 11, the FLRA used its own regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1).
Bankruptcy court. The Rule 11 certification lives in Rule 9011(b)(2); we verified no bankruptcy decision in this window.
California Court of Appeal. Under rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), points must be supported “by citation of authority,” and rule 8.204(e)(2) allows the court to return, strike, or “[d]isregard the noncompliance.” Our CRC 8.204 guide has more.
New York state court. Part 130 sets up a costs-and-sanctions regime, and conduct counts as frivolous if “completely without merit in law” or if “it asserts material factual statements that are false.” Neither of this week’s decisions deals with it.
Pre-filing checklist
- Get every cited case from a primary source and read the page you cite. Both of the fake Chilingarian cases arrived with complete reporter citations and pin cites.
- Check each quotation word for word, Goldberg included.
- Give footnotes the same scrutiny as the body text; 22 of the 29 FLRA footnotes failed.
- When opposing counsel flags a citation, correct it in the reply and file an errata.
- Use our five-check citation protocol and keep a log. For the bigger picture, see the AI sanctions record.
Frequently asked questions
Did the Tenth Circuit sanction counsel in Chilingarian v. Blanche?
No. The order and judgment of October 20, 2026 identified two cases that don’t exist and a false Goldberg v. Kelly quotation, but it imposed no sanction and treated the due process argument as waived.
What did the FLRA find in 74 FLRA No. 87?
It found that 22 of 29 footnotes and 35 of 42 legal or record citations in the HHS brief were fictitious, erroneous, or irrelevant, and it denied the exceptions.
Have a person read every cite before the brief goes in
Our citation verification service catches the kind of errors the Chilingarian and FLRA briefs let through: a person reads each authority, confirms it exists at the page cited, and compares every quotation word for word, footnotes included. Brief already filed? We’ll draft the errata. See citation and rule compliance review.
Authorities cited
Chilingarian v. Blanche, Nos. 25-9591, 25-9592, 25-9593 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2026) (order and judgment), read in full in the Justia copy and the AI Hallucination Cases database PDF, agreeing. Lichfield v. Kubler and Goldberg v. Kelly are quoted or cited only as Chilingarian cites them. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Treasury Employees Union, 74 FLRA No. 87 (Oct. 21, 2026), read on flra.gov and in the database PDF, with the outcome corroborated by Federal News Network. Rule text read today at law.cornell.edu (FRAP 26, 28, 38, 40, 46; FRBP 9011; 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1) and courts.ca.gov (CRC 8.204).
Left out for lack of verification. Commonwealth v. Butler, 3321 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 19, 2026): we read the database PDF but could not retrieve a court or Justia copy, so it is not reported. Tenth Circuit local rehearing rules and any review route from 74 FLRA No. 87 were not verified. Pro se entries were not reviewed.
This article is for informational purposes only and is NOT legal advice. LegalBriefsUSA.com provides drafting and research support to licensed attorneys and law firms. This article is written for attorneys, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.