A federal judge blocked a state law using an order that named people who were never in the case. It quoted words the law never used. It even cited a court case that does not exist. Those AI hallucinations just cost him the case.
On Oct. 22, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out his injunction against Mississippi’s ban on DEI programs in public schools and colleges. Then it did something appeals courts rarely do. It ordered the case handed to a different judge. So the bigger question is no longer about one law. It is about whether Americans can trust what their courts sign.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit vacated Judge Henry Wingate’s injunction against Mississippi’s anti-DEI law, House Bill 1193.
- His original order named 11 plaintiffs and two defendants who were never part of the lawsuit.
- Even the “corrected” order cited a case that does not exist, an apparent AI hallucination.
- The judge admitted a law clerk used AI to draft it, but only after Sen. Chuck Grassley pressed him.
- The panel sent the case to a new judge and ruled the law does not apply to students.
How AI Hallucinations Ended Up in a Federal Court Order
Mississippi passed House Bill 1193 in April 2025. The law keeps state education money from funding DEI programs and mandatory diversity training. Teachers, professors, students, parents, and activist groups sued in June 2025. Soon after, Judge Wingate issued a temporary restraining order that froze the law.
However, that order was a mess. According to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, it named 11 individuals and groups as plaintiffs who had never been party to the case. It also named two officials as defendants who were never sued. Moreover, it quoted terms like “critical race theory” that do not appear anywhere in the law. It even relied on declarations from four people who are not in the record at all.
When the state pointed out the errors, the judge quietly swapped in a new version. The replacement was backdated to the original date. He called the mistakes “clerical” and refused to put the first order back on the public docket.
AI Hallucinations and the Case That Never Existed
Then came the kicker. At oral argument, the appeals court discovered that even the corrected order cited “Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk.” There is no such case. In fact, the volume and page number point to the middle of two unrelated rulings. That is a textbook example of AI hallucinations, a confident answer with nothing behind it.
The Fifth Circuit Did Not Hold Back
Judge Jerry Smith wrote the opinion, and Judge Kurt Engelhardt joined it. Smith opened bluntly: “The proceedings in the district court were a botch job, to say the least.”
He went further. “This district judge carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications,” Smith wrote. In another line, he added that the lower court, “or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent,” had ignored governing law, “apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.”
Notably, this was not a partisan pile-on. Courthouse News reported that Smith and Wingate were both appointed by Ronald Reagan. The third judge, Catharina Haynes, agreed with the result but did not sign most of the opinion.
Bad Law, Not Just AI Hallucinations
Still, the fake citations were only part of the problem. The panel said the injunction ignored Moody v. NetChoice, the 2024 Supreme Court test for broad First Amendment challenges. Under that test, a law falls only if its unconstitutional uses substantially outweigh its lawful ones. Yet the judge twice described that test as “supposedly” required. As a result, the panel questioned whether he even tried to follow it in good faith.
Why AI Hallucinations Are a Rule-of-Law Problem
Let’s be clear. The problem is not that a court touched new technology. Lawyers, businesses, and families use AI tools every day. The problem is that nobody checked the work, and then nobody owned it.
Think about it this way. If an accountant signed a financial statement full of made-up numbers, nobody would blame the spreadsheet. The signature means you verified it. A judge’s signature should mean the same thing, because his order carries the full force of the government.
Also, consider what was at stake. Mississippi’s elected lawmakers passed a law. Then one judge froze it statewide for more than a year with an order built partly on fiction. Meanwhile, taxpayers paid for the court and for the state’s lawyers. As the panel put it, quoting an earlier case, the waste of the tainted proceedings is “already on the balance sheet.”
Grassley Was Right to Push
Wingate only admitted the AI use after Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded answers. In a 2025 statement, Grassley warned, “We can’t allow laziness, apathy or overreliance on artificial assistance to upend the Judiciary’s commitment to integrity and factual accuracy.” Since then, Wingate requires a second independent review of drafts. He also requires every cited case to be printed and attached. That is a good fix against AI hallucinations, but it should have been the rule from day one.
What the Ruling Means for Mississippi
According to Mississippi Today, the decision means the law can now be enforced in classrooms across the state. However, the panel did not rule on whether the law is constitutional. Instead, a new judge will take that up using the correct legal test.
To be fair, the plaintiffs got something too. The panel said the law does not apply to students. It also said the law does not ban teaching about civil rights history, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Ku Klux Klan, the 14th Amendment, or Juneteenth. Plaintiffs’ attorney Rob McDuff called that interpretation “good news” for teachers and students. He also argued that “it’s not as if AI told Judge Wingate to grant” the injunction.
He has a point. Yet AI hallucinations are only a symptom, and that is exactly the concern. The software did not make the ruling. A judge did, and he put his name on it.
FAQ
What are AI hallucinations?
They are false statements that an AI tool presents as fact. Examples include made-up quotes, fake people, or court cases that were never decided.
Did the Fifth Circuit uphold Mississippi’s DEI law?
Not exactly. It vacated the injunction, so the law can be enforced for now. A new judge will decide whether it is constitutional.
Did the judge admit to using AI?
Yes. After Sen. Chuck Grassley pressed him, Judge Wingate said a law clerk used AI to draft an earlier version of the order that was docketed by mistake.
Follow World of Payne for More
Courts only work when the public can trust what judges sign. For more on judges and the limits of their power, read our take on the Ninth Circuit National Guard ruling. And for how AI is already hitting your wallet, see our post on data center electricity bills. Then visit the World of Payne homepage and follow the World of Payne show on X, Facebook, and Instagram so you never miss an episode.
