Judge Sara Ellis

Judge Sara Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois has become one of the most prominent federal trial judges in the country — and her courtroom handles cases where technology, civil rights, and government power intersect. Appointed by President Obama in 2013, she's gained national attention for rulings on federal immigration enforcement, press freedom, and complex civil litigation in Chicago's federal courthouse.

Here's what practitioners need to know: the Northern District of Illinois has multiple individual AI standing orders from different judges, but no district-wide rule. Judge Ellis's docket increasingly involves government action cases where AI use by both parties raises practical and ethical questions. The Illinois Supreme Court's policy on AI — effective January 1, 2025 — adds a state-level backdrop that affects how all Illinois practitioners think about AI disclosure.

N.D. Illinois AI Landscape: Individual Orders, No District-Wide Rule

The Northern District of Illinois handles AI disclosure through individual standing orders rather than a uniform district policy. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes requires disclosure of any generative AI tool used in preparing filings and identification of the specific tool used. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole goes further, requiring certification even when AI is used only for research. Judge Iain Johnston takes a lighter approach, reminding litigants of existing obligations without mandating disclosure. This patchwork means practitioners must check each assigned judge's requirements individually. Judge Ellis's individual practices should be reviewed on the N.D. Ill. website before every filing.

Judge Ellis's High-Profile Cases and Judicial Approach

Judge Ellis has handled cases at the center of national controversies. In October 2025, she ruled that federal agents cannot pepper-spray or tear-gas journalists covering immigration enforcement operations. She subsequently modified a TRO requiring federal agents with body-worn cameras to activate them during enforcement. These cases demonstrate her willingness to issue detailed, specific orders in fast-moving situations — the same precision she'll expect from attorneys who appear before her. Her courtroom demands factual accuracy, clear legal authority, and responsive briefing. AI-generated sloppiness would undermine all three.

The Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy: State-Level Context

On January 1, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court's "Policy on Artificial Intelligence" took effect. It encourages responsible and supervised use of AI while notably recommending that Illinois state court judges not require lawyers to disclose the use of AI in drafting pleadings. This permissive approach at the state level creates an interesting contrast with the federal judges in N.D. Ill. who do require disclosure. For practitioners before Judge Ellis, the state policy isn't directly applicable in federal court — but it reflects the Illinois legal community's general posture toward AI: use it responsibly, verify it thoroughly, and understand that professional responsibility rules apply regardless of the tool.

Practical Compliance Steps for Filing Before Judge Ellis

Step 1: Check Judge Ellis's current individual practices on the N.D. Ill. website at ilnd.uscourts.gov. Step 2: Even if no formal AI standing order exists, follow the strictest N.D. Ill. approach — disclose AI use, identify the specific tool, and certify human verification. Step 3: For government cases, understand that both DOJ attorneys and private practitioners may have conflicting AI obligations. Government counsel may be bound by DOJ's internal AI guidance. Step 4: Verify every citation independently. Judge Ellis issues detailed, specific orders in complex cases — she engages closely with the record and the law. Step 5: Brief your entire team on AI compliance, especially in fast-moving cases where the temptation to rely on AI for speed is highest.

AI Compliance in Fast-Moving Litigation

Judge Ellis's immigration enforcement cases illustrate a practical challenge: how do you maintain AI compliance standards when the court needs briefing on an emergency timeline? TRO applications, emergency motions, and time-sensitive briefing create pressure to use AI tools for speed. The risk is that verification steps get skipped. In Judge Ellis's courtroom, this would be a serious mistake. Her orders demonstrate close engagement with facts and legal authority — she'll catch errors regardless of how fast the briefing happened. Practitioners should build AI verification into their emergency workflows, not treat it as something that gets cut when time is short.

The Bottom Line: Check Judge Ellis's individual practices before filing. The N.D. Illinois has no district-wide AI rule, but multiple judges have individual requirements. Follow the strictest approach as your baseline: disclose AI use, verify all citations, and maintain verification records — especially in the fast-moving cases that define her docket.