Same document, different judge

Two judges in the same courthouse can have different requirements for the same filing, and keeping track of those differences is the problem Court Rules addresses.

The scenario

You have a memorandum of law in support of a motion for summary judgment. The PDF is 31 pages total, but after stripping front matter (cover page, table of contents, table of authorities) and back matter (certificate of service), the body is 25 pages:

Body page count: 25 (what courts count for limit enforcement)
Word count: 7,200
Document type: brief_support
Motion type: Rule_56
District: EDNY

When you use /classify to analyze a PDF, the returned page_count is body pages, not total PDF pages. Front matter and back matter are automatically excluded. The page_count_analysis field in the response shows the full breakdown. When calling /check manually, use body page count, not the raw PDF page count.

Let’s check this document against two EDNY judges.

Judge Amon: REVIEW (action items, no failures)

curl -X POST https://api.courtrules.app/api/v1/check \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "judge_slug": "carol-bagley-amon",
    "district_id": "edny",
    "document_scope": "brief_support",
    "motion_type": "Rule_56",
    "is_pro_se": false,
    "pmc_completed": true,
    "opposing_party_pro_se": false,
    "filing_role": "movant",
    "document": {
      "page_count": 25,
      "word_count": 7200
    }
  }'

Result: REVIEW: within page and word limits, but action items to handle.

{
  "summary": {
    "status": "REVIEW",
    "failures": 0,
    "warnings": 0,
    "passes": 2,
    "action_items": 3
  },
  "results": [
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "PAGE_LIMIT",
      "message": "25 pages within 25-page limit",
      "source": "EDNY LR 7.1(c)",
      "status": "PASS"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "WORD_LIMIT",
      "message": "7,200 words within 8,750-word limit",
      "source": "EDNY LR 7.1(c)",
      "status": "PASS"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "COURTESY_COPY",
      "message": "Courtesy copy required: tabbed binder, double-sided",
      "source": "Amon SO",
      "status": "ACTION_REQUIRED"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "FILING_GATE",
      "message": "Must wait for full briefing before filing",
      "source": "Amon SO",
      "status": "ACTION_REQUIRED"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "PMC",
      "message": "Pre-motion conference completed",
      "source": "Amon SO",
      "status": "PASS"
    }
  ]
}

Judge Amon applies the EDNY district default of 25 pages for support briefs (she imposes no stricter judge-specific limit). The 25 body pages are within that limit. But she requires:

Courtesy copies in a tabbed binder, double-sided
Motions must be fully briefed before filing
A pre-motion conference (which we indicated was completed)

Judge Brown: NON_COMPLIANT (hard failure)

Same document. Same district. Different judge.

curl -X POST https://api.courtrules.app/api/v1/check \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "judge_slug": "gary-r-brown",
    "district_id": "edny",
    "document_scope": "brief_support",
    "motion_type": "Rule_56",
    "is_pro_se": false,
    "pmc_completed": true,
    "opposing_party_pro_se": false,
    "filing_role": "movant",
    "document": {
      "page_count": 25,
      "word_count": 7200
    }
  }'

Result: NON_COMPLIANT: the same document fails.

{
  "summary": {
    "status": "NON_COMPLIANT",
    "failures": 1,
    "warnings": 0,
    "passes": 1,
    "action_items": 2
  },
  "results": [
    {
      "severity": "CRITICAL",
      "category": "PAGE_LIMIT",
      "message": "25 pages exceeds 20-page limit",
      "source": "Brown SO §2.B",
      "status": "FAIL"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "WORD_LIMIT",
      "message": "7,200 words within 8,750-word limit",
      "source": "EDNY LR 7.1(c)",
      "status": "PASS"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "COURTESY_COPY",
      "message": "Courtesy copy always required",
      "source": "Brown SO §1",
      "status": "ACTION_REQUIRED"
    },
    {
      "severity": "INFO",
      "category": "FILING_GATE",
      "message": "Must wait for full briefing before filing",
      "source": "Brown SO §3.B",
      "status": "ACTION_REQUIRED"
    }
  ]
}

Judge Brown imposes a 20-page limit on support briefs, 5 pages below the EDNY default. Your 25-page memo is 5 pages over. The court will reject it, not on the merits, but on formatting.

The difference

Check	Judge Amon	Judge Brown
Page limit	25pp (district default): PASS	20pp (standing order): FAIL
Courtesy copies	Tabbed binder, double-sided	Always required
PMC	Required (all parties)	Required
Filing gate	Must wait for full briefing	Must wait for full briefing

The same document in the same courthouse passes for one judge and fails for the other, because Amon’s limit is the EDNY default of 25 pages and Brown’s standing order sets a stricter cap of 20.

Why this happens: three rule layers

Federal court compliance is governed by three layers of authority, each of which can impose different requirements:

FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure): National baseline. Covers captions, signatures, privacy redactions, motion content requirements. Same for every federal judge in every district. 15 rules.
Local Rules: District-wide. Formatting (font, margins, spacing), word limits, timing, and required documents. Every judge in the district shares these.
Standing Orders: Judge-specific. Each judge publishes a PDF with their personal requirements. Page limits, courtesy copy policies, pre-motion conference rules and filing gates live here, so the differences between judges come from this layer.

The API checks all three layers together and tells you which rule, from which layer, applies to your filing.

Try it yourself

Pick any two full-coverage judges (Amon, Block, Brown) and run the same document against both. Each result cites the standing order or rule it comes from, so you can check it against the court’s own document.

# Check available judges
curl 'https://api.courtrules.app/api/v1/judges?district_id=edny' \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

# See the rules for each judge
curl 'https://api.courtrules.app/api/v1/rules?judge_slug=carol-bagley-amon&district_id=edny' \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

curl 'https://api.courtrules.app/api/v1/rules?judge_slug=gary-r-brown&district_id=edny' \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

Getting started

Read court rules

Check filing compliance

Read official rulebooks

Monitor enforcement actions

Use with AI agents

Same document, different judge

The scenario

Judge Amon: REVIEW (action items, no failures)

Judge Brown: NON_COMPLIANT (hard failure)

The difference

Why this happens: three rule layers

Try it yourself

​The scenario

​Judge Amon: REVIEW (action items, no failures)

​Judge Brown: NON_COMPLIANT (hard failure)

​The difference

​Why this happens: three rule layers

​Try it yourself

The scenario

Judge Amon: REVIEW (action items, no failures)

Judge Brown: NON_COMPLIANT (hard failure)

The difference

Why this happens: three rule layers

Try it yourself