Jarrus et al. v. Governor of Michigan et al.
E.D. Michigan · Dec 2, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Michigan
- Record ID
- jarrus-et-al-v-governor-of-michigan-et-al-2025-12-02
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a total monetary sanction of $600, with each of the two plaintiffs responsible for $300, payable to the Clerk of Court.
- Known monetary consequence
- $600
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned pro se plaintiffs $600 for violating Rule 11 by submitting filings containing three misrepresented, AI-generated case citations. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to verify the accuracy of content produced by ChatGPT Plus, despite explicit prior warnings from the court regarding the risks of using generative AI tools in legal drafting.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Krupski for the proposition that relation-back amendment is mandatory; court found Krupski does not establish that mandatory rule and the plaintiffs overstated the case's holding. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Heller to claim temporary loss of Second Amendment rights is irreparable harm; court held Heller does not state that and plaintiffs improperly extended Elrod (a First Amendment case) to the Second Amendment. || Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiffs relied on Oppenheimer for scope of discovery under Rule 26; court noted Oppenheimer has been superseded by statute and reliance on it was misplaced.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Monetary sanctions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT Plus
- Known monetary consequence
- $600
- Procedural posture
- Opinion and Order on Order to Show Cause and Imposing Sanctions for Use of ChatGPT.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Plaintiff Michael Jarrus identified the tool as ChatGPT Plus.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.