That Xiong v. Wofford: Court Addresses Hallucinated Citations at Immigration Hearing — Counsel Held Accountable (E.D. Cal., Jan 2026)

Case at a Glance

Background

That Xiong, an immigration detainee who claimed to be ‘effectively stateless’ — born in Thailand but not recognised as a Thai citizen — filed a habeas petition challenging his detention and removal order. Counsel filed a reply brief in support of a motion for a temporary restraining order (later converted to a preliminary injunction). The reply cited two cases: ‘Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal.)’ and ‘Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal.).’ These cases did not exist.

The AI Issue

At a January 13, 2026 hearing, the court directly addressed the two hallucinated citations that appeared in petitioner’s reply. The court ordered counsel to (1) order the transcript of the hearing, (2) provide the transcript to the law student who appeared on the filings, and (3) share it with any staff who assisted with the petition. This team-wide accountability order is a significant development — extending responsibility for AI citation verification beyond the supervising attorney.

• The court identified two specific hallucinated case citations: ‘Phan v. Barr’ and ‘Flores v. Barr’ — both non-existent [specific citations named].
• The court addressed the hallucinations at a hearing on 13 January 2026 — making the accountability public and oral, not just written [hearing-based accountability].
• Counsel was ordered to share the transcript with the law student on the filings and with all assisting staff [team-wide accountability order].
• The immigration court framework — habeas petitions for detainees — is now confirmed as a high-risk area for AI hallucinations [immigration bar warning].
• The case illustrates that AI citation errors in urgent TRO/preliminary injunction applications can be particularly harmful to clients who depend on speed and accuracy [client harm in detention context].

“The Court addressed the hallucinated citations and ordered petitioner’s counsel to order the transcript for the hearing, provide the transcript to the law student on petitioner’s filings and to any staff who assists petitioner’s counsel.”

— E.D. California, That Xiong v. Wofford, 22 January 2026

The India Angle

Indian Law Equivalent: Under Rule 15 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, submitting fabricated or non-existent case citations before any Indian court constitutes professional misconduct and contempt. The duty to verify cited authorities is absolute — AI does not create an exception.

Bar Council Rules: BCI Rule 15 (duty not to mislead the court) and Rule 33 (duty to conduct cases with integrity) are directly engaged when AI-generated hallucinated citations are filed. Disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council can result in suspension or rmoval from the roll.

Practical Advice for Indian Advocates: Verify every AI-generated citation on SCC Online, Manupatra, or IndianKanoon before filing. No AI tool — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any Indian legal AI — reliably produces accurate citations. Treat AI output as a starting point for research, not a final product.

Quick Takeaways

• Courts can now hold entire legal teams — including law students and paralegals — accountable for AI hallucinations in filings.
• Urgent applications (TROs, bail, habeas) are particularly high-risk for AI hallucinations — where speed leads to insufficient verification.
• Indian advocates supervising junior lawyers and law clerks who use AI must establish firm verification protocols: the supervising advocate is professionally responsible.