The Pulse
Fifth Circuit Orders New Judge in Mississippi AI-Error Case
The Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction blocking Mississippi’s H.B. 1193 and ordered the case reassigned after AI-related errors appeared in a trial judge’s orders. The appeals court also set out legal standards for the next judg
AI.info Team · Written with AI · fact-checked ·
A new judge will take over the case
The Fifth Circuit on October 22 vacated a preliminary injunction blocking Mississippi from enforcing its law restricting diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public education, then ordered the case assigned to a different district judge. The ruling follows a series of errors in orders issued by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, including material the appeals court described as AI hallucinations. The panel said reassignment was necessary to do justice, while also overturning the injunction on legal grounds.
“This case easily calls for reassignment,” wrote Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, who authored the opinion. Fifth Circuit opinion The court directed the chief judge of the Southern District of Mississippi to assign the case to a different judge for all further proceedings.
The orders included nonexistent parties and a fake case
The dispute challenges Mississippi’s House Bill 1193, enacted in April 2025. Teachers, professors, students, parents and organizations brought a pre-enforcement lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. Wingate issued a temporary restraining order in July 2025 and later granted a preliminary injunction.
The appeals court found that the original restraining order named 11 people and organizations who were not parties to the lawsuit, referred to two officials who had not been sued in the capacities listed, and included declarations from four people who did not appear in the record and might not exist. It also attributed to the law terms that were not in its text and asserted, without evidence, that schools had already ended programs because of the law.
After state officials challenged the errors, the district court replaced the original order with a seemingly corrected version, backdated to July 20, 2025. The Fifth Circuit said that version still cited “Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk,” a case that does not exist. Wingate later acknowledged that a law clerk had used AI to help draft an earlier version that was mistakenly docketed; he characterized the mistakes as clerical.
Reassignment rested on the record, not just the AI errors
The panel said the district court’s handling of the false material, its legal analysis and its response to the errors together supported reassignment. The court reasoned that Wingate could have difficulty setting aside views formed through orders based on mistaken facts and law, and that returning the case to him could diminish public confidence in the proceedings. It also concluded that an objective observer might question the judge’s impartiality.
The ruling did not find that Wingate was actually biased. Instead, the court applied its tests for reassignment on remand, which consider whether a judge may struggle to put aside erroneous findings, whether a new judge would preserve the appearance of justice, and whether the benefits outweigh the costs of a reassignment.
The injunction falls as the legal challenge continues
The Fifth Circuit separately held that the district court’s analysis of the First Amendment challenge did not meet the standards set by the Supreme Court. For a facial challenge, the appeals court said, the plaintiffs must assess the law’s scope and compare its unconstitutional applications with its lawful ones; pointing to programs that might be affected does not, by itself, establish that the law is unconstitutional.
The appeals court also instructed the new judge to evaluate the law’s foreseeable applications and apply the relevant constitutional tests before deciding the challenge. It did not finally resolve whether H.B. 1193 is constitutional. With the preliminary injunction vacated and the case remanded, the new judge must reconsider the dispute under the Fifth Circuit’s instructions.