A court restricts AI on criminal-case materials
On 16 June 2026 the chief judge of the Northern District of West Virginia issued a standing order for all criminal cases in the court: the defence may not put sensitive case materials into any AI tool without the government's prior written consent, and public systems that retain and train on inputs are barred outright.
Why it matters
This is not a sanction for a mistake but a rule set in advance: the court puts AI between the parties to a criminal case and decides where the data of an investigation may go. An editorial assessment.
The order in Miscellaneous No. 1:26-MC-38 takes effect on signing and lasts until the court orders otherwise. It defines an 'AI tool' broadly: any automated system that uses statistical modelling or machine learning, 'cloud-based or otherwise'. To get permission the defence must name the tool in writing and certify that it does not retain or use the materials for training, does not expose them to unauthorised third parties, that reasonable confidentiality measures are in place and that the materials will be deleted at the end of the case. The order lists eleven categories of sensitive materials, from contact details and confidential sources to medical and tax information and images of minors. It excludes public materials, materials the defence obtained other than through discovery, and those that concern only the defendant. What the record does not claim. The order does not decide which materials are discoverable or admissible and says nothing about breaches or penalties. It does not explain whether specific events in this court prompted it.