The Eighth Circuit never adopted an attorney/litigant AI disclosure or certification order — a full sweep of all 262 hashed administrative orders and 768 per-document receipts found no filer-facing AI provision (the Harvey and "co-counsel" hits were false positives). The circuit's only current local AI provision is internal: AO 10.07 (v5, Acceptable Computer Use Policies, eff. Jan 30, 2026) §13 permits court staff to use AI tools "when such use is specifically authorized" and bars feeding CJI, confidential or sealed case information, PII, or network details to external AI services. Filers are governed solely by statewide law: amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) (SC2026-0673) and AOSC26-12 (both eff. June 15, 2026).
AO 10.07 §13 binds court staff/technology use — it is NOT a filing requirement. No AI certification or disclosure is required of filers in the Eighth Circuit beyond statewide Rule 2.515(d)(2).
Verbatim from the operative section of this order, re-extracted 2026-07-26; whitespace normalised only. • Bandwidth Usage Excessive use of the Court’s bandwidth such as large file downloads and streaming media is not permitted for non-work-related activities. Large downloads or other bandwidth- intensive tasks that may degrade network performance must not interfere with Court operations. Please contact Court Technology for assistance with bandwidth-intensive activities. • Non-Court-Supplied Hardware and Software Non-Court-supplied hardware such as personal phones or laptops are prohibited on the network. The installation of non-Court approved software is also prohibited. Exceptions must be approved by the Trial Court Administrator or designee.
Bandwidth Usage Excessive use of the Court’s bandwidth such as large file downloads and streaming media is not permitted for non-work-related activities. Large downloads or other bandwidth- intensive tasks that may degrade network performance must not interfere with Court operations. Please contact Court Technology for assistance with bandwidth-intensive activities.
Reviewer note: | Set to in_review 2026-07-26: the order's subject looks practitioner-facing but the extracted text captured only recitals or an effective date, not the operative ORDERED section. This is an extraction defect, not a judgement that the order is unimportant — it needs re-extraction before it goes back on the published surface. | Re-extracted 2026-07-26 from the numbered paragraphs following the order's ORDERED clause, replacing a first pass that had captured recitals and the effective date.
2 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1986-33A.
1 verbatim requirement from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1987-09.