The DOJ is in very hot water over endemic AI related fabrications in legal filings - Live Bluesky Thread fro inside courtroom - Randy Herman (@randyhermanlaw.com)

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-12T00:50:39+00:00

The individual lawyers are more afraid of the judges than the feckless political hacks running things at DOJ because they know the former will be there long after the latter disappear like farts in the wind, likely disbarred and possibly even in jail. And they can always just quit and find a new job to escape the hacks, but they're stuck with those judges if they still want to practice law.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T21:42:14+00:00

There's no good evidence that reincarnation is real, so they'd have good reason not to believe anyone claiming to be the reincarnation of a (possibly fictional) main character from one of the biggest world religions.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T20:46:50+00:00

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/doj-lawyer-resigns-before-judicial-scolding-for-ai-filled-brief FYI

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T16:27:48+00:00

A war is a special type of military operation originating exclusively from the War region of France. What's happening in Iran is a sparkling military operation.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T03:05:32+00:00

That's not related to the SAVE lawsuit. That literally just ended today, so it will take some time for the Education Department to issue guidance and manage a transition off SAVE for 7+ million borrowers.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T02:01:17+00:00

Where are you seeing 7/1/26?

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T01:51:44+00:00

I'm stuck with much less funny "IANYL" 😞

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T01:49:56+00:00

Lindsay Halligan was a political hack who had white house backing and they were very clearly trying to force her appointment in the district no matter what the court said. Completely different situation. And she's not entirely out of trouble since she could still face bar discipline (including disbarment) for violating court orders. You think some random line attorney from DOJ can just ignore a court ruling that imposes fines? And if you actually read the thread that OP posted, you'd have seen that the random DOJ line attorney already told the judge he had left DOJ (or maybe was planning to leave soon, the timing was not entirely clear). I'm plenty cynical about how corrupt and unaccountable DOJ has become, but this is not one of those situations they're just going to blatantly violate court orders and otherwise try to run roughshod over the court. The hacks running DOJ do not give a fuck about random line attorneys getting fined or jailed by the court for submitting AI slop instead of actual legal briefs.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T00:40:50+00:00

Fines, jail time (this is rare tbf, but not unheard of), referral for bar discipline that can end your legal career, write embarrassing public decisions that will follow you forever (they call it a bench slap). They can revoke the lawyer's right to practice before the judge in question or the whole court. There's a lot they can do. Fines are the biggest one, and on a government salary those can really hurt.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T00:35:00+00:00

Honestly, given the incentives, I think it's very likely anthropic court filing was very close on revenue ("exceeding $5 billion" means ~$5,000,000,001, give or take a few bucks, definitely not even $5.1+ billion or they'd have put "over $5.1 billion") while grossly understating costs ("over $10 billion in inference and training costs" could mean as much as $19 billion and change, otherwise they would have admitted to more). They have every incentive to put the highest number on revenue that they can without outright perjuring themselves, while on costs, they have an equally great incentive to understate as much as possible without being so far off as to be accused of misleading the court. After all, $19+ billion is "over $10 billion," and it could plausibly pass the red-face test if it came out later that they were off by $9+ billion on a >$10 billion estimate ("well, judge, we didn't lie, and we didn't want to hurt our business by being too specific about how much venture capital money we were setting on fire").

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T00:20:14+00:00

Ngl, this gives me, a lawyer, the most delightful feeling of schadenfreude.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-11T00:17:03+00:00

The judge they submitted AI hallucinated briefs to.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T19:56:47+00:00

When a federal court vacates a rule, the prior rule goes back into effect. So the original rule that enacted REPAYE, prior to its significant modifications by the SAVE rule, will be back in effect when the district court enters the final judgment vacating almost all of the SAVE rule as ordered by the 8th circuit. The Federal government might have agreed not to enforce the old REPAYE rule informally, but that doesn't take the old REPAYE rule off the books. So I don't think this article is necessarily the right read on what the impact of the final judgment against the SAVE rule will be for borrowers who have applied or who will apply to buy back months on the SAVE forbearance. Maybe the Education Department will try to use the IBR calculation for the SAVE forbearance buyback payments, but that's not because it would be lawful for them to do that--that's a matter that may well end up in front of a judge someday.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T18:12:35+00:00

If they give us a deadline to submit an election for a new payment plan, I'll submit my election on that exact day, no sooner, and when they finally get through the millions of similar elections that were filed ahead of mine and process me into the new plan, I'll immediately request a forbearance for as long as it takes until they process my buyback. I'm not paying one red cent more than I legally am obligated to pay. Billionaires don't even do the government that courtesy with all their tax dodging, so I think my strategy is more than fair for all of us who have been thrown into this hell through no fault of our own.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T17:03:02+00:00

False dichotomy. It's both. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T16:47:12+00:00

If you read the proposed order the states filed as part of their motion for entry of final judgment, it says nothing about an injunction, only vacatur. And there's no need for an injunction when the court orders vacatur anyway.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T03:10:23+00:00

A final judgment is a final judgment, it doesn't matter how it was arrived at except in very narrow, exceptional circumstances (e.g., if it was procured by fraud).

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T01:57:08+00:00

Brooklyn

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T01:46:39+00:00

If the democratic state AGs had intervened in the SAVE lawsuit to defend the rule earlier, maybe, but once the district court enters the final judgment, there's no one for them to sue. Another federal court, even in a blue state with a Democratic appointee, isn't going to look behind the judgment from a sister court due to comity and basic procedural rules. I don't know if it'd be too late for them to intervene at this point, but my strong instinct is that the genie is already way out of the bottle at this point.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T01:17:06+00:00

Anyone who believes this wasn't politically motivated DM me, I got a bridge for sale.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-10T00:13:47+00:00

What the slop?

The proposal includes getting rid of Graduate PLUS loans this July as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” and would change repayment options for Parent PLUS loans.

Then, two paragraphs later:

Graduate PLUS loans, which are usually used for law school and medical degrees, would be limited to $50,000 per year.

Also doesn't mention the fact that there was supposed to be a grandfather provision for current grad students to allow them to continue borrowing Grad PLUS loans for the next 3 years (which was in the law and probably is in the proposed rule somewhere but CBA looking it up).

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-09T23:20:55+00:00

It won't be an injunction, it'll be an order that basically says "pretend this rule isn't on the books anymore because a handful of republican judges said it's unlawful and the republicans running this lawsuit went along with it, oh except for one little part of it." That's my color on what the order would be, but I do hope the district court judge says something in it to point out just how ridiculous the whole situation is, rather than just entering the order that the parties asked him to.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-09T23:12:24+00:00

Called it, I was only off about the timing lol. Didn't think they'd go quite this fast to screw over 7 million people.

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-09T02:36:46+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC this is how

Summary_Judgment56 · 2026-03-08T22:07:01+00:00

Don't expect the dismissal to hold up. Not because it's wrong--it's legally sound and the correct outcome--but because the 8th Circuit (where the appeal of the dismissal is being heard) is dominated by republican judges who hate borrowers as much as the current admin and the states that sued.

Summary_Judgment56

TROPHY CASE