Jones v. Department of the Army
Fed. Cir. · May 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Record ID
- jones-v-department-of-the-army-2026-05-13
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated citations while vacating and remanding the underlying administrative claims.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Federal Circuit issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for including fabricated case law in his filings, which the court attributed to the use of artificial intelligence. The court cautioned that further use of such citations is sanctionable and could result in the dismissal of the petitioner's case.
The court reasoned that the inclusion of non-existent citations, which the petitioner failed to justify, constitutes sanctionable conduct that undermines the integrity of the appellate process.
This case illustrates the Federal Circuit's intolerance for AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts will actively monitor and warn against the submission of fabricated authorities, regardless of the litigant's representation status.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of Merit Systems Protection Board decisions regarding compensatory and consequential damages, resulting in an affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand order.
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
The court attributed the errors to the use of artificial intelligence.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.