What is proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707?

A proposed new rule that would apply the Rule 702 reliability requirements to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert witness. The published text says the court may admit such evidence only if it satisfies Rule 702(a)-(d), and carves out the output of simple scientific instruments.

Is Rule 707 in effect?

No. The Judicial Conference page on pending amendments, read October 22, 2026, lists amendments projected for December 1, 2026, 2027 and 2028 and Rule 707 is not among them. The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules did not recommend action on it in its May 17, 2026 report.

What did the Advisory Committee decide in 2026?

On May 7, 2026 the committee held Rule 707 back after public comment, preferred a revised draft that makes an expert foundation the default, and agreed to take it up again at a fall 2026 meeting together with a possible deepfake rule, Rule 901(c). The October 15, 2026 agenda book describes the published version as withdrawn and a modified proposal as under further study.

What did public commenters say?

The committee's minutes record 59 written comments by the February 16, 2026 deadline: 3 in unqualified support, 27 supportive with revisions and 27 opposed. Criticisms included the breadth of the term machine-generated evidence, the vagueness of the simple scientific instruments exception, and a view that the rule is premature.

Does Rule 707 apply to AI-generated fake case citations in briefs?

No. The rule concerns evidence offered to prove a fact. Hallucinated citations in briefs are handled by sanctions rules such as Rule 11 and by court orders, which is what most records in the AI Vortex corpus document. The two records below are the closest links: an expert declaration with AI-fabricated citations and deepfake exhibits.

HomeTopicsFRE 707

Rulemaking tracker · primary sources

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 on AI evidence

What the rule says, where the federal Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules stands, and the dated steps so far. Every statement below comes from a uscourts.gov document opened on October 22, 2026.

Committee page, uscourts.gov Methodology

Status as read on October 22, 2026

Rule 707 is not in force and no version has been approved. The committee is studying a revised draft.

The Advisory Committee's May 17, 2026 report to the Standing Committee says it "does not recommend action on the proposed Rule 707 at this time." The pending-amendments page lists no Rule 707 for 2026, 2027 or 2028. The committee met again on October 15, 2026; the documents read do not include a record of what it decided there.

Text published for comment (August 2025)

Rule 707. Machine-Generated Evidence, as printed in the August 2025 preliminary draft (PDF page 109):

When machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert witness and would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness, the court may admit the evidence only if it satisfies the requirements of Rule 702(a)-(d). This rule does not apply to the output of simple scientific instruments.

The accompanying note says the rule applies when output is entered directly and when it comes through a lay witness who may know little about its validity, and that Rule 902(13) certification covers authenticity but not reliability.

Working draft under study (October 2026)

The October 15, 2026 agenda book(page 173 of 221) titles the revised draft "Evidence Produced By Artificial Intelligence and Presented at Trial Without an Expert." It states that the committee has not approved all of the language. Subdivisions (a) to (d):

(a) In General. If evidence is a product of artificial intelligence and is offered without an expert witness, but would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness, the proponent must establish that the evidence: (1) will help the trier of fact; (2) is based on sufficient facts or data; (3) is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (4) reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

(b) Establishing Admissibility. Ordinarily, the proponent must provide an expert to explain how the system of artificial intelligence reliably produced the evidence. But in exceptional circumstances, the court may consider other proof to find that the output satisfies the requirements of (a)(2)-(4).

(c) Notice. The evidence is admissible only if the proponent gives all parties reasonable notice of the intent to offer the evidence, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.

(d) Judicial Notice. This rule does not apply to facts that may be judicially noticed under Rule 201.

Subdivision (e) defines artificial intelligence, using a definition taken from the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020; some of its wording is still bracketed in the draft.

Dated timeline

2025-05-02
Advisory Committee recommends publication
The Evidence Rules committee voted 8-1 to recommend releasing proposed new Rule 707 for public comment. The Department of Justice voted against. The report states that release for comment is not a presumption that the rule should be enacted.
Source: Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments, August 2025 (PDF)
2025-06
Standing Committee approves publication
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved publication at its June 2025 meeting.
Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, May 17, 2026 (PDF)
2025-08
Published for public comment
Rule 707 appears in the August 2025 preliminary draft, with Rule 609. Written comments were due February 16, 2026. Evidence Rules hearings were scheduled for January 15 and January 29, 2026.
Source: Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments, August 2025 (PDF)
2026-02-16
Comment period closes
The committee received 59 written comments by the deadline and heard testimony at two hearings: 3 comments in unqualified support, 27 supportive with revisions, 27 opposed.
Source: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, minutes of May 7, 2026 (PDF)
2026-05-07
Advisory Committee holds Rule 707 back
The committee reviewed three revised drafts, preferred "Version Two" (an expert foundation is the default, with an exception for other proof of reliability) and agreed to take Rule 707 up again at a fall 2026 mini-conference together with a possible deepfake rule, Rule 901(c).
Source: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, minutes of May 7, 2026 (PDF)
2026-05-17
Report to the Standing Committee
The report states that the committee "does not recommend action on the proposed Rule 707 at this time" and has revised the rule and plans further study.
Source: Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, May 17, 2026 (PDF)
2026-06
Standing Committee meeting (June 3-4, 2026)
The draft minutes record the Evidence Rules reporter saying this was the first time a rule published for public comment did not go forward.
Source: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, agenda book of October 15, 2026 (PDF)
2026-09
Standing Committee report to the Judicial Conference
The report lists continued consideration of a possible new Rule 707 as an information item. Rule 707 appears there only as an information item.
Source: Standing Committee report to the Judicial Conference, September 2026 (PDF)
2026-10-15
Advisory Committee meeting with AI mini-conference
The agenda book for this meeting contains the working draft of Rule 707 and a panel discussion on AI evidence. It describes the committee as having voted "to withdraw the proposed rule as issued for public comment, and to submit a modified rule proposal for further study."
Source: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, agenda book of October 15, 2026 (PDF)

Records in the corpus that sit next to the rule

Most of the 2,202records in the corpus concern fabricated citations in filings, which Rule 707 does not govern. Two records involve AI-generated material in evidence or expert work and appear in the committee's own agenda books. The corpus also holds 17 records where the party is an expert.

Kohls v. EllisonD. Minnesota · Jan 10, 2025 · Expert Declaration ExcludedAn expert declaration was excluded after the expert relied on AI that produced fabricated citations. The committee's May 2026 agenda book discusses this decision as an example of Rule 702 reliability and AI.Read the record Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et alSC California · Sep 9, 2025 · Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.A California court struck a complaint as a terminating sanction after exhibits were found to be deepfakes. The committee's agenda books discuss this decision in the deepfake work that runs alongside Rule 707.Read the record

Browse all 17 expert records

Before you rely on this

Confirm the outcome of the October 15, 2026 meeting on the committee page once its minutes are posted. The comment count differs between documents: the May 2026 minutes say 59 written comments, while the October agenda book says more than 70. The page gives the minutes figure. Nothing here is legal advice; check the cited documents for any filing or court deadline.

Primary sources (all uscourts.gov)

Questions this page answers

What is proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707?: A proposed new rule that would apply the Rule 702 reliability requirements to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert witness. The published text says the court may admit such evidence only if it satisfies Rule 702(a)-(d), and carves out the output of simple scientific instruments.
Is Rule 707 in effect?: No. The Judicial Conference page on pending amendments, read October 22, 2026, lists amendments projected for December 1, 2026, 2027 and 2028 and Rule 707 is not among them. The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules did not recommend action on it in its May 17, 2026 report.
What did the Advisory Committee decide in 2026?: On May 7, 2026 the committee held Rule 707 back after public comment, preferred a revised draft that makes an expert foundation the default, and agreed to take it up again at a fall 2026 meeting together with a possible deepfake rule, Rule 901(c). The October 15, 2026 agenda book describes the published version as withdrawn and a modified proposal as under further study.
What did public commenters say?: The committee's minutes record 59 written comments by the February 16, 2026 deadline: 3 in unqualified support, 27 supportive with revisions and 27 opposed. Criticisms included the breadth of the term machine-generated evidence, the vagueness of the simple scientific instruments exception, and a view that the rule is premature.
Does Rule 707 apply to AI-generated fake case citations in briefs?: No. The rule concerns evidence offered to prove a fact. Hallucinated citations in briefs are handled by sanctions rules such as Rule 11 and by court orders, which is what most records in the AI Vortex corpus document. The two records below are the closest links: an expert declaration with AI-fabricated citations and deepfake exhibits.