The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently vacated a preliminary injunction obstructing Mississippi’s law against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education practices. This drastic move arose alongside the removal of US District Judge Henry Wingate from the associated case. Judge Jerry Smith, representing the unanimous three-judge panel in Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, criticized the lower court’s treatment of the constitutional challenge to House Bill 1193.
The controversy ignited when Judge Wingate issued a July 2025 temporary restraining order (TRO). The order, filled with errors, named 11 non-existent plaintiffs and included fictitious quotes from state statutes. When these discrepancies were brought to light by state officials, Wingate replaced the order with a backdated version, dismissing the initial errors as clerical in nature. However, the narrative took a significant turn when it was revealed that a law clerk, using generative artificial intelligence, had drafted the initial order. Even more troubling was the discovery that the replacement TRO, which contributed to an August 2025 preliminary injunction, still referenced an AI-generated citation to a non-existent court case, Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk.
Judge Smith remarked on the handling of the district court’s decision, stating that it was a “botch job.” The reliance on fabricated facts and unsound legal reasoning echoed through Wingate’s orders, which the appellate court determined rested on inadequate legal analysis. This analysis seemingly ignored pivotal precedents from the Supreme Court or pertinent circuit courts and, at times, excessively manipulated statutory language.
House Bill 1193, enacted in April 2025, prohibits Mississippi’s public schools and universities from operating DEI offices, requiring diversity statements, or promoting specific DEI concepts in curricular content. The ruling from the Fifth Circuit underscores the judiciary’s current challenges in grappling with the misuse of AI in legal documentation. Ultimately, to maintain public trust in judicial processes, the appeals court mandated the reassignment of the case to a different judge.
A broader context of judicial reliance on AI across jurisdictions highlights increasing concerns, as seen in other cases of AI mishandling within legal settings. The appeal decision from the Fifth Circuit serves as a critical commentary on the responsibilities of legal professionals in an era where technology intersects significantly with law.