**Judge Beryl Howell of the D

Judge Beryl Howell of the D.D.C. issued the most important AI copyright ruling in American history — and the Supreme Court let it stand. In *Thaler v. Perlmutter* (2023), she held that works generated entirely by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted because "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." The D.C. Circuit affirmed unanimously, and in March 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. That ruling is now the law of the land.

For practitioners filing before Judge Howell: you're appearing before a judge who understands AI at a substantive level that few federal judges match. As former Chief Judge of the D.D.C. (2016-2023), she shaped the court's approach to technology, intellectual property, and national security cases. Her courtroom demands the same level of precision and legal rigor that she applied to the most consequential AI ruling any federal trial court has produced.

Thaler v. Perlmutter: The Ruling That Defined AI Copyright Law

On August 18, 2023, Judge Howell ruled in *Thaler v. Perlmutter* that AI-generated artwork is not eligible for copyright protection. Inventor Stephen Thaler sought to register a work titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," listing his "Creativity Machine" AI system as the sole author. Judge Howell agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office's denial, holding that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright" and that copyright has "never stretched so far" as to protect works created without "any guiding human hand." The D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed on March 18, 2025, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026. This ruling establishes that purely AI-generated works sit outside copyright protection — a principle that affects every creative industry and every case involving AI-generated content.

Judge Howell's AI Expertise and the Frontier Questions

Judge Howell acknowledged in *Thaler* that "we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox." She left open the question of where the line falls between purely AI-generated works (not copyrightable) and AI-assisted works with meaningful human creative input (potentially copyrightable). This is the question that will define the next decade of AI copyright litigation. Cases involving AI-assisted music, writing, visual art, and code generation will need to navigate this distinction. If your case involves AI-generated or AI-assisted creative works, Judge Howell's *Thaler* framework is the starting point — and appearing before her means the judge who wrote that framework is applying it.

Judge Howell's Background: Chief Judge, IP, and National Security

Howell served as Chief Judge of the D.D.C. from 2016 to 2023 — a period that included some of the most politically charged litigation in the court's history. Before the bench, she was the chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee (2003-2010) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney in EDNY. Her expertise spans intellectual property, national security, and government accountability. She presided over cases involving classified information, foreign intelligence surveillance, and government transparency. This combination of IP expertise and government litigation experience makes her uniquely positioned to address AI issues that cross these domains.

Practical Compliance Steps for Filing Before Judge Howell

Step 1: Understand the *Thaler v. Perlmutter* framework before filing any case involving AI-generated content in her courtroom. The distinction between purely AI-generated works and AI-assisted works with human creative input is central. Step 2: Check the D.D.C.'s evolving AI policies. The AI Taskforce and Roadmap are moving toward formal requirements. Step 3: For IP cases, prepare detailed evidence of the human creative process if you're arguing that an AI-assisted work deserves copyright protection. "I prompted the AI" may not be enough — you'll need to show meaningful human creative control. Step 4: Verify all citations and factual assertions independently. Judge Howell's analytical depth means errors will be caught and documented. Step 5: If your case involves AI governance, copyright, or creative works, anticipate that Judge Howell will engage with the technical details at a sophisticated level.

The Impact of Thaler Beyond Judge Howell's Courtroom

The *Thaler* ruling affects every federal court and every practitioner working with AI-generated content. The key holdings: purely AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted; human authorship is constitutionally required under the Copyright Clause; and the Copyright Office properly exercises its authority to deny registration for non-human works. The open question — how much human involvement transforms an AI-assisted work into a human-authored one — is actively being litigated in other courts. The U.S. Copyright Office has issued guidance suggesting that AI-assisted works with sufficient human creative expression may qualify for protection, but the exact threshold remains undefined. Practitioners in any court should cite *Thaler* as binding authority on the baseline question.

The Bottom Line: Judge Howell issued the most consequential AI copyright ruling in federal court history. Before appearing in her courtroom, understand the Thaler framework, prepare detailed evidence of human creative involvement for AI-assisted works, and comply with the D.D.C.'s evolving AI disclosure policies. This is the judge who defined the law — come prepared to engage at that level.