Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk sits in the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, appointed by President Trump in June 2019. He's become one of the most consequential federal judges in the country after issuing the nationwide injunction against FDA approval of mifepristone in 2023—a ruling that went all the way to the Supreme Court. And he's one of the few federal judges who issued a mandatory AI certification requirement that rivals Judge Brantley Starr's pioneering standing order in the same district.

Judge Kacsmaryk's AI certification requirement is explicit: every attorney and pro se litigant must file a certificate attesting to their AI use—or non-use—with their notice of appearance. His language about generative AI is unusually pointed, stating that these tools hold "no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States." If you're filing in Amarillo, AI compliance isn't optional—it's a threshold requirement before you even begin litigating.

The Mandatory AI Certification Requirement

Judge Kacsmaryk requires all attorneys and pro se litigants to file a certificate with their notice of appearance attesting either that (1) no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard), or (2) that any language drafted by generative AI will be checked for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases by a human being. The certificate explicitly invokes Rule 11 responsibility—the court will strike any filing from a party who fails to file the certificate. Any party who believes a platform has sufficient accuracy for legal briefing may move for leave and explain why.

The Philosophy Behind the Order

Judge Kacsmaryk's AI certification includes a philosophical statement that sets it apart from other judges' orders. He wrote that while attorneys swear an oath to uphold the law, generative AI "is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath." He continued that these systems "hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States" and act "according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle." This isn't just a procedural rule—it's a statement about the role of human judgment in the legal system. Attorneys should understand that Judge Kacsmaryk views AI as fundamentally different from traditional legal tools.

The Mifepristone Case and National Impact

In April 2023, Judge Kacsmaryk issued a nationwide injunction suspending FDA approval of mifepristone, the most commonly used abortion medication in the United States. The ruling—Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA—was stayed by the Supreme Court pending appeal, and the Court ultimately ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs lacked standing. But the case cemented Amarillo as a forum-shopping destination for consequential federal litigation. Cases of this magnitude generate intense scrutiny from the Supreme Court, Congress, media, and legal scholars. Every filing is examined under a microscope—including for AI compliance.

The Amarillo Division and Forum Selection

The Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas has only one active district judge—Judge Kacsmaryk. This means that cases filed in Amarillo are virtually guaranteed to be assigned to him. This has made the division a target for strategic forum selection by plaintiffs seeking a conservative judicial approach. For AI compliance, this has a practical implication: if you're filing in Amarillo, you will appear before Judge Kacsmaryk, and you must file the AI certification with your notice of appearance. There's no chance of being assigned to a judge without an AI requirement.

Best Practices for Filing Before Judge Kacsmaryk

Step 1: File the mandatory AI certification with your notice of appearance—failure to do so will result in your filings being struck from the docket. Step 2: If you used AI in any filing, certify that all AI-generated language was verified using print reporters or traditional legal databases. Step 3: If you believe an AI platform is sufficiently reliable for legal briefing, file a motion for leave explaining why—don't just use it and hope for the best. Step 4: Read the full text of Judge Kacsmaryk's judge-specific requirements on the Northern District of Texas website—the AI certification is just one of several strict procedural requirements. Step 5: Remember that Rule 11 liability attaches to everything you file—the AI certification adds a layer of accountability but doesn't replace the underlying obligation.

The Bottom Line: Judge Kacsmaryk's mandatory AI certification is one of the strictest in the federal judiciary. File the certificate with your notice of appearance or your filings will be struck. If you use AI, verify every word through print reporters or traditional databases. His order makes clear that AI tools have no oath, no allegiance, and no accountability—only you do.