Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
A Texas appellate court found four of the eight opinions cited in an appellee's brief appeared to be hallucinations, and considered striking the brief entirely before deciding to proceed to the merits with a warning
The sanction this court weighed was not a fine. It was striking the brief and proceeding as though none had been filed, which for a responding party means the other side's version of the facts can be taken as true.
Bottom line: A memorandum opinion in an interlocutory appeal. The court found that four of the eight judicial opinions cited in the appellee's brief appeared to be hallucinations created by generative AI, traced each one, considered striking the brief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9, and declined to do so while cautioning counsel.
Who this affects: Litigants and counsel in the Fourth Court of Appeals, which has now issued this admonition three times, and more broadly anyone assessing what procedural consequence follows from fabricated authority in a responding party's brief.
Issue date: Decided 5 August 2026.
What changed: No rule changed. The opinion is notable for identifying the specific procedural remedy the court considered, for rejecting an explanation offered for the hallucinations, and for tying the conduct to two named professional conduct duties.
Analysis: Striking a brief is a materially different consequence from a monetary sanction or a bar referral. Where the offending party is the appellee, the court notes that when an appellee does not file a brief the appellate court may accept any factual statement in the appellant's brief as true. The remedy therefore operates on the record rather than on the lawyer.
Primary sources: SAISD v. Becerra, No. 04-25-00724-CV, opinion PDF · Same opinion via the Texas courts search system
- Instrument
- San Antonio Independent School District v. Becerra, memorandum opinion
- Citation
- No. 04-25-00724-CV
- Court
- Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas, on interlocutory appeal from the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County
- Authoring judge
- Justice Lori I. Valenzuela
- Jurisdiction
- Texas, United States
- Status
- Decided 5 August 2026. Memorandum opinion.
- Outcome on the AI issue
- The court considered striking the appellee's brief under TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9 and declined, proceeding to the merits without further action, with an express caution to counsel.
- Outcome of the appeal
- Reversed and rendered, dismissing the suit against SAISD. That disposition rested on the merits of the jurisdictional question, not on the hallucinated citations.
- Prior admonitions by the same court
- Suday v. Suday, No. 04-23-00836-CV (Tex. App. San Antonio, 14 January 2026); AGiza v. Franklin, No. 04-25-00099-CV (Tex. App. San Antonio, 23 July 2025)
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/08/05/san_antonio_independent_school_district_v._laura_becerra_as_next_friend_of.pdf
Four of eight
The court began its analysis with the appellee's citations, stating that the brief cites eight judicial opinions, four of which appear to be hallucinations created by generative artificial intelligence. It then set each one out.
One cited authority does not exist, and the reporter citation given for it leads instead to a 2018 opinion of a Missouri court of appeals. The court recorded that despite a thorough search of Westlaw and the websites of the Houston courts of appeals it had been unable to locate any appellate opinion matching the parties named, and noted that the opposing party's reply brief had expressly identified the citation as a hallucination.
A second does not exist either. The court's searches showed that the cause number cited had been assigned to a criminal case in the relevant year.
A fourth entry is different in kind and worth separating out. There the court found an apparent attempt to cite a real Fifth Circuit decision, but the brief described that decision as involving a college student's expressive conduct and campus restrictions. The court held this is not correct, because the case is an employment discrimination dispute that does not involve any school law, expressive conduct, or campus restriction issues.
The explanation that made it worse
The appellee offered an account of why the fabricated authorities appeared in her brief: she contended she had cited them to refute the school district's own reliance on those citations.
The court checked. It found that the district did not cite any of these fictitious opinions in either its appellate briefing or its trial court filings, and concluded that it is therefore unclear why the appellee decided to include these hallucinations in her brief.
This is a fact pattern worth noting on its own. The explanation offered was that the opposing party had introduced the citations, and the record showed the opposing party had never mentioned them. An explanation that can be checked against the filings, and fails, leaves the court in a worse position than an unexplained error would have.
The court treated it as such, describing inaccurate representations about the contents of an opposing party's brief as a distinct problem alongside reliance on fictitious citations.
The remedy the court actually considered
The court stated that in light of these hallucinations it had considered whether to strike the appellee's brief and proceed as if she had failed to file a brief, citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9 and its own earlier decision.
It also cited authority for what that would mean in practice: when an appellee does not file a brief, the appellate court may accept any factual statement made in the appellant's brief as true.
That is the point practitioners should take away. For a responding party, striking the brief is not a reprimand that runs alongside the case; it removes the party's answer from the appeal and permits the opponent's factual account to stand unopposed. The consequence lands on the client's position rather than on the lawyer's record.
The court declined to impose it, saying it would proceed to the merits of the appeal without taking further action on this issue, while cautioning counsel that it will not tolerate similar issues in any future appearances before this court.
A court on its third admonition
The opinion places itself in a sequence. The court noted that it has previously warned litigants that generative artificial intelligence tools lack the ability to produce reliable and accurate citations to legal authorities, citing its decisions in Suday v. Suday from January 2026 and AGiza v. Franklin from July 2025, and said it once again repeats that admonition.
It then attached the conduct to specific duties, reminding licensed attorneys, including the appellee's counsel in this appeal, that they owe both a duty of candor to the court and a duty of competence to their clients, citing the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. It stated that reliance on fictitious citations and inaccurate representations about the contents of an opposing party's brief are inconsistent with both of these duties.
Read as a sequence, the trajectory is visible: a footnote admonition in 2025, a repeat in January 2026, and now a considered but withheld strike accompanied by an express warning about future appearances. The next step in that progression is the one the court has already described.
One point of precision that matters for accurate reporting. The appeal was resolved in the district's favour, reversed and rendered with the suit dismissed, but that outcome rested on the jurisdictional merits, specifically a holding that no protected property or liberty interest had been pleaded. The hallucinations did not decide the case.
The operative point is the remedy. This court considered striking the appellee's brief under Rule 38.9 and proceeding as if no brief had been filed, and it cited authority that where an appellee files no brief the court may accept the appellant's factual statements as true. For a responding party that is a far heavier consequence than a fine or a referral, because it forfeits the client's answer rather than penalising the advocate. It was withheld here, with an express warning that similar issues will not be tolerated in future appearances, from a court now on its third recorded admonition. Two further details are worth carrying: an explanation that the fabricated cases were cited to rebut the opponent's reliance on them collapsed when the court checked the filings and found the opponent had never cited them; and one of the four defects was not a fabricated case at all but a real decision described as involving facts it does not involve, which no existence check would catch. The appeal itself was decided on jurisdictional grounds, not on the citations.
Source File
Open the opinion PDF and confirm four things: the caption showing the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, No. 04-25-00724-CV, on appeal from the 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, authored by Justice Lori I. Valenzuela; the passage opening the analysis and stating that the appellee's brief cites eight judicial opinions, four of which appear to be hallucinations created by generative artificial intelligence, followed by the bulleted tracing of each; the paragraph recording that the appellee said she cited them to refute the district's reliance on them and that the district had never cited them; and the paragraph considering whether to strike the brief under Rule 38.9 before declining and cautioning counsel.
Becerra's appellee's brief cites eight judicial opinions, four of which appear to be hallucinations created by generative artificial intelligence. Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, San Antonio Independent School District v. Becerra, No. 04-25-00724-CV, 5 August 2026
FAQ
How many citations were fabricated?
The court found that four of the eight judicial opinions cited in the appellee's brief appeared to be hallucinations created by generative artificial intelligence, and set out each one.
Was the brief struck?
No. The court considered striking it under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9 and proceeding as if no brief had been filed, but decided to proceed to the merits without further action, while cautioning counsel that it will not tolerate similar issues in future appearances.
Why would striking the brief be serious?
Because the offending party was the appellee. The court cited authority that when an appellee does not file a brief, the appellate court may accept any factual statement made in the appellant's brief as true. The consequence would fall on the client's position in the appeal.
What explanation did the appellee give?
That she cited the fabricated authorities to refute the school district's own reliance on them. The court found the district had not cited any of them in its appellate briefing or its trial court filings, and said it was therefore unclear why they were included.
Did the hallucinations decide the appeal?
No. The court reversed and rendered judgment dismissing the suit on the jurisdictional merits, holding that no impact to a protected property or liberty interest had been pleaded. The citation issue was addressed separately.
Has this court addressed AI citations before?
Yes. It cited its own prior warnings in Suday v. Suday, decided 14 January 2026, and AGiza v. Franklin, decided 23 July 2025, that generative AI tools lack the ability to produce reliable and accurate citations to legal authorities, and it repeated that admonition here.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.