A federal judge has been removed from a high-profile challenge to Mississippi’s anti-DEI law after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit characterized his handling of the case as a "botch job." The appeals court vacated a preliminary injunction that had blocked the state law and ordered the case reassigned to a different judge, citing orders riddled with factual errors, apparent AI-generated hallucinations, and misapplications of Supreme Court precedent.
In an opinion written by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, the Fifth Circuit panel stated that Judge Henry Wingate "carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications." The court noted that the district judge, or potentially his AI assistance, "ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda." The reassignment of a case by an appeals court is described by legal experts as an "extraordinary" and "rarely invoked" step.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and legal scholars have largely welcomed the Fifth Circuit’s decision, viewing it as a necessary correction to judicial overreach and a warning against the uncritical use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. The opinion by Judge Smith, who is often associated with the conservative wing of the judiciary, emphasized that Judge Wingate’s orders contained significant factual inaccuracies, including listing plaintiffs who were never part of the case and defendants who were incorrectly named.
Supporters of Mississippi’s law argue that the state legislature acted within its authority to define the scope of public education policies. They contend that the lower court’s attempt to block the law was based on flawed reasoning and fabricated evidence, which the appeals court rightly dismantled. The Fifth Circuit’s criticism of Wingate for describing the Supreme Court’s *Moody v. NetChoice* framework as "supposedly" required was seen by conservative legal groups as evidence that the lower judge did not faithfully apply binding precedent.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive legal observers and advocates for the plaintiffs in the case have expressed concern that the Fifth Circuit’s sharp rebuke of Judge Wingate may signal a broader judicial skepticism toward challenges against state-level restrictions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The plaintiffs, a group of teachers, parents, and students, argued that the Mississippi law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting DEI-related practices in public schools and universities.
While the plaintiffs’ legal team has not issued a detailed public response to the specific language of the Fifth Circuit's order, the removal of the injunction suggests that lower courts may face increased scrutiny when issuing broad injunctive relief against state statutes. Critics of the Fifth Circuit's approach argue that the focus on procedural errors and AI usage distracts from the substantive constitutional questions regarding free speech and equal protection raised by the plaintiffs.
What the Numbers Show
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion details specific errors in Judge Wingate’s original temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in July. According to the appeals court, the TRO identified 11 individuals and organizations as plaintiffs who were not part of the case, named two officials as defendants who were not involved, and made unsupported claims that three schools had already canceled DEI programs due to the law. Additionally, the order cited purported declarations from four people who did not appear in the record and "may not even exist."
The court also noted that the original TRO attributed language to the Mississippi bill that does not appear in the law, such as references to "race or sex stereotyping," "critical race theory," and "institutional bias." Even after Wingate replaced the order two days later, the corrected TRO cited a nonexistent case, which the Fifth Circuit labeled "an apparent AI hallucination." Wingate acknowledged that a law clerk used AI to assist in drafting the TRO, describing the errors as "clerical," a characterization the appeals court rejected.
The Bottom Line
This case highlights the growing intersection of artificial intelligence in legal drafting and the strict procedural standards required for federal injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit’s decision to vacate the preliminary injunction and reassign the case means that Mississippi’s anti-DEI law can likely take effect while the litigation continues under a new judge. The appeals court emphasized that a preliminary injunction cannot stand simply because there is a possibility of success on the merits, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in *Moody v. NetChoice* and the 2025 decision in *Trump v. CASA*.
Legal analysts suggest that the explicit mention of AI hallucinations in a published appellate opinion may prompt federal courts to implement stricter guidelines for the use of generative AI tools by judges and their clerks. The case remains in its early stages, with the substantive constitutional challenges to the Mississippi law yet to be fully adjudicated by the reassigned district judge. The outcome could have implications for similar anti-DEI legislation in other states.