The Seventh Circuit is the anti-disclosure circuit

The Seventh Circuit is the anti-disclosure circuit. Illinois federal judges have been the most vocal opponents of mandatory AI disclosure requirements in the country, arguing that singling out AI tools for special treatment is both unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. It's a contrarian position — and it's worth understanding why.

Covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, the Seventh Circuit's approach stands in sharp contrast to circuits racing to adopt AI rules. But even here, individual courts have carved out exceptions. Waukesha County, Wisconsin adopted what may be the strictest county-level AI order in the nation, proving that even in anti-regulation circuits, local judges will act when they feel the risk is real.

The Seventh Circuit's Anti-Disclosure Philosophy

The Seventh Circuit hasn't adopted AI disclosure requirements, and influential voices within the circuit have actively argued against them. The reasoning goes like this: attorneys already have a duty to verify everything they file, regardless of whether a human associate, a Westlaw search, or ChatGPT generated the initial draft. Creating a separate disclosure requirement for AI tools implies that other research methods are inherently more trustworthy — which isn't true. A sloppy Westlaw memo written by a first-year associate can contain just as many errors as an AI-generated brief. This isn't an irresponsible position; it's a principled one. The question is whether the principle holds up as AI tools become more powerful and AI-specific errors become more common.

Illinois: Leading the Anti-Disclosure Movement

Several judges in the Northern District of Illinois — including the district's most prominent commercial litigation judges — have explicitly stated they won't require AI disclosure. Their position is that Rule 11 already covers the relevant conduct: if you sign a filing, you're certifying its accuracy, period. The tool you used to draft it is irrelevant. This view has influenced other districts and has been cited by judges outside the Seventh Circuit who resist adopting AI-specific rules. The Southern District of Illinois and the Central District of Illinois have followed the Northern District's lead, with no formal AI disclosure policies. For practitioners, the Illinois approach means you won't face disclosure requirements — but you also won't get the protective benefit of a good-faith disclosure if something goes wrong.

Waukesha County, Wisconsin: The Strictest Local Order

In a striking contrast to Illinois, Waukesha County in Wisconsin adopted what's arguably the strictest county-level AI order in the United States. The order requires detailed disclosure of any AI tool used in preparing court filings, a certification that all AI-generated content has been verified, and identification of the specific AI tool or tools used. The order goes further than most federal standing orders by requiring the type of AI tool to be named — not just a generic statement that 'AI was used.' This level of specificity puts Waukesha County at the extreme end of the disclosure spectrum and shows that even within anti-regulation circuits, individual courts will chart their own course.

Indiana and the Rest of Wisconsin

Indiana's federal courts — the Northern District (Hammond/South Bend/Fort Wayne) and Southern District (Indianapolis) — haven't adopted formal AI disclosure policies. Individual judges may address AI in case-specific orders, but there's no systematic approach. Wisconsin's federal courts outside Waukesha County are similarly quiet at the federal level, though the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) has seen a few judges add AI language to standing orders. The state-level contrast between Waukesha's strict approach and the rest of Wisconsin's laissez-faire attitude illustrates how fragmented AI regulation remains even within a single state.

Strategic Implications of the Seventh Circuit Approach

For managing partners, the Seventh Circuit's anti-disclosure stance creates a unique strategic environment. First, you don't need to include AI disclosure language in most Seventh Circuit filings — but you should still verify everything because the absence of disclosure requirements means courts expect you to handle AI verification internally. Second, if you're filing in Waukesha County, comply meticulously with their specific order — it's the exception that proves the rule. Third, document your internal AI policies even though the court doesn't require disclosure, because if a problem surfaces, you'll need to demonstrate that your firm took AI risks seriously. Fourth, the Illinois anti-disclosure position may shift if a major AI sanctions case arises within the circuit — don't assume today's permissive environment is permanent. Fifth, for multi-circuit firms, maintain your AI compliance protocols for Seventh Circuit work even though they're not required — it's easier to have one standard than to toggle between circuits.

The Bottom Line: The Seventh Circuit is the strongest voice against mandatory AI disclosure in federal courts, with Illinois judges arguing that Rule 11 already covers the conduct. But Waukesha County's strict local order shows that even here, individual courts will act. Don't confuse the absence of a disclosure mandate with a license to be careless — the verification duty is just as strong, disclosure or not.