US Appeals Court Removes Judge From Mississippi DEI Case Over AI Errors

A US federal appeals court has removed a district judge from a constitutional challenge to Mississippi's restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programmes after an earlier court order contained AI-generated errors, including nonexistent legal authorities and factual assertions unsupported by the record.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction preventing Mississippi from enforcing House Bill 1193 and ordered the case to be reassigned from US District Judge Henry Wingate to a different judge.

The decision does not establish that Mississippi's DEI law is constitutional. Instead, the Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court for further consideration and provided guidance on how several First Amendment issues should be assessed.

Mississippi enacted House Bill 1193 in 2025. The legislation restricts public schools, colleges and universities from mandating activities including diversity training or using public education funding to promote specified DEI initiatives.

Teachers, professors, students and advocacy groups challenged the law, arguing that its restrictions violated rights protected by the US Constitution. Wingate initially issued a temporary restraining order preventing its implementation.

That order subsequently attracted scrutiny after it was found to contain fabricated names, references to events that had not occurred and nonexistent legal authorities.

Wingate later told US Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the errors resulted from a law clerk's unvetted use of the AI platform Perplexity. The faulty order was replaced, but Wingate subsequently issued a preliminary injunction that continued to block the law.

Mississippi appealed and argued that the AI-related errors undermined confidence in the district court's handling of the litigation and justified assigning the case to another judge.

The Fifth Circuit agreed.

US Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, writing for the three-judge panel, criticised the district court's handling of the case and identified factual assertions unsupported by the record as well as errors in its application of governing law.

The panel concluded that reassignment was warranted and ordered the constitutional challenge to proceed before a different district judge.

Vacating the preliminary injunction also means the order preventing Mississippi from enforcing House Bill 1193 has been removed while the litigation continues.

The Fifth Circuit nevertheless gave the new judge detailed guidance. It said the legislation does not apply directly to students and recognised that teachers and students can continue discussing issues involving race, sex and civil rights in various circumstances.

The district court will also have to consider Mississippi's authority to regulate publicly funded curricula and government speech against the individual speech rights of teachers and professors.

Robert McDuff of the Mississippi Center for Justice, representing the plaintiffs, said the decision addressed some of their concerns by clarifying that public school teachers and students remain able to discuss issues involving race, sex and civil rights. The plaintiffs can continue challenging other aspects of the law when the case returns to the district court.

The ruling has wider significance because the AI errors occurred within a judicial order rather than a document submitted by a lawyer.

Courts have increasingly encountered fabricated authorities and inaccurate citations produced by generative AI in legal filings. US courts do not currently operate under a single uniform framework governing lawyers' use of the technology, and individual judges and courts have adopted differing approaches.

The Mississippi litigation demonstrates that AI-related failures within judicial work can have consequences extending beyond correcting an inaccurate decision. Here, the errors became part of the Fifth Circuit's assessment of whether the same judge should continue hearing the case.

The ruling therefore provides another significant test of how courts manage generative AI as its use in legal research and drafting expands. AI tools may assist legal work, but the accuracy of authorities, facts and reasoning appearing in judicial orders remains subject to human verification and established standards of judicial decision-making.

The case is Jackson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Fitch, No. 25-60496, before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.