The Lawxy Times
DOJ Requires “Super Intelligence” Terminology in Filings
On Oct. 7, 2026 the Department of Justice issued a memorandum directing its attorneys to replace the abbreviation “AI” with the phrase “super intelligence” in all court filings and official communications. The directive implements President Trump’s Sept. 29, 2026 executive order that obliges federal agencies to use the alternative wording “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” The immediate effect is that DOJ lawyers must audit and amend any pending or future submission that contains the original term.
Full News Breakdown
The memo was prompted by the administration’s effort to reshape the federal lexicon around emerging technologies, and the core dispute centered on whether existing filings could retain the conventional abbreviation without violating the new policy. Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter concluded that the substitution must be applied whenever it does not conflict with substantive legal requirements.
Date: Oct. 7, 2026
Citation: DOJ Memo 2026‑10‑07
Statutes Cited: Executive Order 140‑2026 (Sept. 29, 2026)
Key Provisions: Section 1 requires “use of ‘super intelligence’ … to the maximum extent permitted by law.”
Primary Legal Issue: Whether an agency may mandate terminology changes in legal filings absent explicit statutory authority.
Operative Order: All DOJ attorneys must replace “AI” with “super intelligence” in any filing where the change does not alter substantive rights or obligations.
Practical Outcome: Pending briefs, motions, and discovery requests must be revised; future templates must incorporate the new phrasing.
How Does This Affect You?
Before the memo, practitioners were unsure whether the federal agencies could enforce a lexical shift without breaching statutory language. The guidance resolves that uncertainty by imposing a mandatory substitution whenever it is legally permissible. Consequently, attorneys now face a clear compliance checkpoint: any DOJ‑directed document that retains the original abbreviation may be rejected for non‑conformity.
For Lawyers & Advocates
Conduct a terminology audit of every active DOJ‑related matter and replace the abbreviation in pleadings, motions, and expert reports where the change does not affect the legal analysis.
Revise all internal briefing templates to embed “super intelligence” as the default term, ensuring that junior counsel cannot inadvertently re‑introduce the older wording.
Cite the memo as persuasive authority when arguing that a court should accept a substitution in a parallel non‑DOJ proceeding, thereby leveraging the agency’s stance as a policy argument.
Flag any statutory provision that defines “artificial intelligence” verbatim, because a blind substitution could create a conflict with the text of the law.
Document the rationale for any exception in a pre‑filing memo, noting that the exception is based on a direct conflict with statutory language, to shield the team from internal disciplinary review.
For Law Students
This case illustrates how agencies interpret executive directives under the doctrine of deference.
The central doctrinal focus is the scope of Chevron deference when an agency issues interpretive guidance rather than a formal rule.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:
Administrative law and agency interpretation
Executive‑order implementation
The interplay between the Administrative Procedure Act and agency guidance
Judicial review standards for agency policy statements
Comparative analysis with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC (1984) and King v. Burwell (2015) shows how courts balance agency expertise against statutory text, highlighting the limits of agency power to reshape legal terminology.
For Businesses
Technology firms bidding on DOJ contracts must rewrite all proposal sections that mention “AI” to read “super intelligence,” or risk automatic disqualification.
Contractors providing algorithmic services to federal customers should update compliance manuals to reflect the new lexical requirement, preventing internal audit findings.
Companies preparing licensing applications that reference machine‑learning capabilities must anticipate the same substitution, ensuring that regulatory submissions are not returned for non‑conformity.
Key Takeaways
Agencies may now mandate a specific terminology shift in legal filings when the change does not alter substantive rights, filling a prior gap in guidance.
Practitioners must embed a pre‑submission checklist that verifies compliance with the “super intelligence” requirement for every DOJ‑related document.
The DOJ can reject filings that retain the original abbreviation without a documented statutory conflict, giving the agency enforcement leverage.
Watch for the Office of Management and Budget’s anticipated Q1 2027 guidance, which may broaden the substitution rule to other federal entities.
In‑house counsel should revise internal filing protocols before the next DOJ deadline to avoid rejection or delay.
References
Source: DOJ lawyers told to replace term ‘AI’ with ‘super intelligence’
