Kingsfield / AI hallucination cases / Gurpreet Kaur v. Captain Joel Desso
VERDICT: REJECT

Gurpreet Kaur v. Captain Joel Desso

Claude (Sonnet 4). Invented quotations attributed to real Supreme Court and circuit opinions.

Court
N.D. New York
Decision date
2025-07-09
AI tool (per record)
Claude (Sonnet 4)
Hallucination
Fabricated quote
Court outcome
Monetary and professional sanctions
Monetary penalty
1000 USD
Kingsfield verdict
REJECT
In tested set
Yes

What happened

Gurpreet Kaur was detained by immigration officials after crossing the Canadian border. Her attorney, Dennis Desmarais, filed a habeas petition and an emergency motion to stop her removal to India.

His supplemental brief contained fabricated quotations from real Supreme Court decisions, including DHS v. Thuraissigiam and Landon v. Plasencia. The government's brief flagged the false quotes, and the Court's own review found more in citations to Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Wong Wing. At a hearing, Desmarais admitted he used the generative AI tool Claude Sonnet 4 to draft the brief and did not check its work.

The fabricated citation

Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (quotation fabricated)

Offered for: a due-process limitation on a holding

What the court did

The Court found that Desmarais violated Rule 11 and acted in subjective bad faith, since he knew AI tools can fabricate citations yet did not verify them. It imposed a $1,000 penalty payable to the Clerk of Court within 14 days and ordered him to file proof of completing a CLE program on the use of AI in legal writing, and proof of serving the order on the petitioner, by September 1, 2025.

How Kingsfield ruled

Kingsfield returned REJECT. The brief quotes Thuraissigiam as saying a sentence that is not in the decision. The court confirmed the quoted line appears nowhere in it.

This matter is among the US case-law cases we ran Kingsfield against in the Charlotin benchmark. Kingsfield's existence check confirms every citation against the case-law corpus and an independent source (CourtListener) before any claim resting on it can stand. Across the run Kingsfield ruled 696 of 700 testable claims correctly, including every one of the 504 fabricated citations and 92 fabricated quotes.

Honest scope. This measures Kingsfield's ruling layer given an extracted citation, not an end-to-end run over a full brief. The case record and the AI-tool attribution come from Damien Charlotin's public database and the court order; the verdict is Kingsfield's. See the full 700-claim benchmark.

← Back to the live verdict demo