Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a sharp opinion criticizing a federal district judge for including AI-generated falsehoods in his orders. The court vacated the judge’s preliminary injunction and directed that the case be reassigned to another judge.
The case, Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, No. 25-60496 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2026), involved a constitutional challenge to Mississippi legislation restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in public educational institutions. Judge Henry Wingate of the Southern District of Mississippi had issued a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the law.
The problem was that the order contained a collection of factual errors. It identified eleven individuals and organizations as plaintiffs who were not parties to the litigation, named two officials who had not been sued, and referred to declarations from four individuals who did not appear in the record and might not even exist. It also described educational programs supposedly eliminated because of the legislation, without any supporting evidence, and attributed language to the statute that the statute did not contain.
After the defendants pointed out the errors, Judge Wingate removed the original order from the docket and substituted a corrected version, backdated to the original filing date. When the defendants asked that the original order be restored to preserve the record, the judge declined, characterizing the mistakes as clerical.
The matter eventually attracted national attention, including an inquiry from Senator Chuck Grassley. Judge Wingate acknowledged that a law clerk had used AI to assist in preparing an earlier draft of the order, which the judge said had been docketed by mistake. He maintained that the inaccuracies did not affect the core legal reasoning or ultimate decision.
Unfortunately, the corrected order was not entirely corrected. During oral argument before the Fifth Circuit, the parties discovered that it still cited a nonexistent Fourth Circuit decision, Cousins v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 503 F.2d 422 (4th Cir. 1974). The citation was particularly curious because the volume and page numbers corresponded to portions of two entirely different cases, neither of which addressed the proposition for which the fictitious decision was cited.
The Fifth Circuit was not persuaded that these problems could be dismissed as clerical errors. Writing for the court, Judge Jerry Smith described the district court proceedings as a “botch job” and criticized the judge for issuing orders based on fabricated facts. The court also concluded that the district judge had seriously misapplied controlling law, including Supreme Court precedent governing facial constitutional challenges and preliminary injunctions.
The appellate court’s criticism extended to the district judge’s legal analysis, his failure to explain the removal of erroneous factual assertions, and his apparent unwillingness to reconsider his original conclusions. The court observed that the judge had not explained why the original injunction remained justified once the false information supporting it was removed.
Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit took the unusual step of ordering reassignment on remand. Although appellate courts have the authority to reassign cases when necessary to preserve the appearance of justice, that remedy is extraordinary. Here, the court concluded that the judge’s handling of the fabricated material, combined with the deficiencies in his legal analysis, created sufficient concerns about the fairness of further proceedings before him.
The opinion raises an important question about responsibility for AI-assisted judicial work. Judge Wingate attributed the drafting errors to a law clerk, but the orders were issued in the judge’s name and exercised the authority of his office. Judges routinely rely on law clerks to research, draft, and edit opinions. That assistance does not relieve the judge of responsibility for the resulting judicial decisions.
This principle should be familiar to lawyers. Under Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3, lawyers have obligations concerning the supervision of nonlawyer assistants. And regardless of who prepares an initial draft, the lawyer who submits a filing to the court remains responsible for complying with the applicable rules governing candor, competence, and representations to the tribunal.
We have encouraged lawyers to become familiar with AI because it can be a useful tool for legal research, drafting, and analysis. This recent opinion reinforces the importance of verification and professional judgment. And when a mistake is discovered, how it is handled may be just as important as how it happened.
