The judge's name and the case caption have not been confirmed in the reporting available, so the underlying matter cannot yet be identified. No reporting ties this ruling to Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States (CIT 24-00221), where Judge M. Miller Baker, on September 22, flagged two statements in a Chinese exporter's brief as possibly AI-generated.
The ruling tests a common defense: that a flawed citation came from ordinary human error rather than AI. Sparing sanctions while still rebuking the filing suggests courts may separate sanctionable conduct from warnings. A Kentucky federal judge reached a similar result in July 2026, declining sanctions against two attorneys citing their lack of prior misconduct and remorse. Sanctions for AI-generated citations are otherwise routine, ranging from a $5,000 fine in 2023 to an order citing at least fifty-five defective citations in a FIFA case. Attorneys should verify every citation before filing and be ready to document how a brief was prepared.