Federal Judge Removed From DEI Case Over Errors, AI Hallucinations

A federal judge has been removed from a case challenging Mississippi's anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) law after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals described his handling of the matter as a "botch job." The appellate court cited numerous factual errors, including an apparent AI-hallucinated case citation, and misapplications of Supreme Court precedent in its decision.

In an opinion written by Judge Jerry Smith, the Fifth Circuit vacated Reagan-appointed Judge Henry Wingate's preliminary injunction that had blocked the state law. The court ordered the case to be reassigned to a different judge, a step described as "extraordinary" and "rarely invoked."

"This district judge carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications," Smith wrote. "The district court—or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent—ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda."

The dispute began in July when teachers, parents, and students sued, arguing that the Mississippi law restricting DEI practices in public schools and universities violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Wingate issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the law, but Mississippi officials soon pointed out significant factual errors.

These errors included naming 11 individuals and organizations as plaintiffs who were not part of the lawsuit, incorrectly identifying two defendants, and asserting that three schools had already canceled DEI programs due to the law. The original TRO also cited declarations from four individuals who either did not appear in the court record or might not exist, according to the Fifth Circuit.

Furthermore, the TRO attributed language to the law that was not present, such as references to "race or sex stereotyping," "race or sex scapegoating," "critical race theory," and "institutional bias."

Even a corrected TRO issued by Wingate contained errors, including a citation to a non-existent case that the Fifth Circuit labeled as an "apparent AI hallucination." This citation was used in a discussion about the relationship between TROs and preliminary injunctions, leading the appeals court to suggest the fabricated citation was "arguably part of the shoddy reasoning of the preliminary injunction, too."

Wingate later acknowledged that a law clerk had used artificial intelligence to help draft the TRO, after accusations of AI use surfaced. He characterized the errors as "clerical" and stated they did not affect the court's "core legal reasoning or the ultimate judgment on the merits."

The Fifth Circuit, however, questioned how such a high number of mistaken facts would not impact the court's reasoning. The appeals court also found substantial flaws in Wingate's legal arguments, accusing him of misinterpreting Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment challenges, exceeding the scope of court injunctions, and mishandling legal protections for government and public-employee speech.

Specifically, the court focused on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which outlines a two-step test for courts evaluating First Amendment challenges seeking to invalidate an entire law. The Fifth Circuit took issue with Wingate referring to the Moody framework as "supposedly" required, questioning whether he had acted in good faith.

"The district court’s laxity in observing the binding authority of the Supreme Court is yet another reason to doom the preliminary injunction," Smith wrote. The appeals court also criticized Wingate's reasoning for granting preliminary relief, noting his statement that the court "should pause when faced with an unsettled area with such dire possible consequences." This, the Fifth Circuit stated, "gets the entire law of injunctive relief completely backwards."

Additionally, the Fifth Circuit accused Wingate of misinterpreting the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which guides judges on limiting orders to what is necessary to protect plaintiffs. Wingate had cited CASA to argue that injunctions should be "all-or-nothing renditions," which Smith countered is "almost exactly the opposite of what CASA says," cautioning against overbroad relief.

The Fifth Circuit has sent the case back to the Southern District of Mississippi for a new judge to consider it.