Idaho Blogger's Defamation Appeal Raises Questions About AI-Generated Legal Documents
A conservative Idaho blogger is asking the state's Supreme Court to overturn a $1.1 million defamation verdict, but the judges appeared skeptical of her arguments-particularly after noting that her appellate brief contained misrepresented or nonexistent case law, suggesting AI involvement.
Summer Bushnell, who runs the far-right blog "The Bushnell Report," published a video in 2022 that implied drag performer Eric Posey exposed himself during Coeur d'Alene's Pride in the Park event. The video was edited with a blurred crotch area, and Bushnell's post went viral in conservative circles.
A police investigation found Posey never exposed himself. He was clothed during the performance, and the video had been edited to suggest otherwise.
A North Idaho jury ordered Bushnell to pay Posey over $1.1 million in damages in 2024. Posey said the false accusation caused him to lose his job and experience severe emotional distress.
The Appeal and AI Questions
Bushnell argued Thursday before Idaho Supreme Court justices in Lewiston that the jury's damages were inflated and that the jury instructions were unfair. She said she had no malice toward Posey and that there was no causal connection between her conduct and his damages.
Justice Gregory Moeller challenged her position directly. "The allegations in this case of modifying a video and lying about its contents and publicizing it sound pretty serious," he said. "Help me understand why it's not as serious as the jury thought it was."
Bushnell's responses drew criticism. When she claimed jury instructions were flawed, Moeller called her answers "word salad."
The judges then raised a more pointed concern: her appellate brief appeared to cite case law that either didn't exist or was misrepresented-a pattern suggesting she had used AI to generate legal arguments.
"I am a good writer," Bushnell responded. "I am not a legal expert."
What the Court Found
Posey's attorney Wendy Olson argued the evidence clearly proved defamation and that the jury properly assessed punitive damages. She noted that Idaho has no statute limiting punitive damages in defamation cases, leaving the decision to juries.
Moeller concluded with a broader observation about the case. "Trials are quests for truth," he said. "This is a case that's about allegedly telling lies about someone to hurt their reputation, and then you file documents that are filled with untruths because of the sources that you filed."
The Idaho Supreme Court will issue a ruling at a later date.
Implications for Legal Practice
The case highlights a growing concern in legal practice: lawyers and parties using AI tools to generate briefs and legal arguments without proper verification. For legal professionals, the risks are clear-AI-generated case citations and legal reasoning require careful human review before filing.
Understanding how AI can fail in legal contexts is essential. Learn more about AI for Legal professionals and how to properly integrate these tools into your practice. Those working in support roles should review the AI Learning Path for Paralegals to understand both capabilities and limitations.
Your membership also unlocks:
