What’s new, in 20 seconds
- On October 22, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel vacated US District Judge Henry Wingate's preliminary injunction against Mississippi's anti-DEI education law, H.B. 1193, and directed that the case go 'to a different district judge for all further proceedings.'
- Judge Jerry Smith's opinion says the corrected version of Wingate's July 2025 order cited Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, a case that 'does not even exist; it is an apparent AI hallucination.' Wingate told the courts' administrative office on October 21, 2025, that a law clerk had used Perplexity on a draft that 'should have never been docketed.'
- Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database listed 2,217 court decisions involving hallucinated content when last updated on October 25, 2026, 32 of them tagged to judges, though the database says it isn't comprehensive.
Contents
A federal judge was removed from a case over AI errors on Thursday, October 22, 2026, sharpening the debate over AI in US courts and policy. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated Judge Henry Wingate's preliminary injunction against Mississippi's anti-DEI education law and ordered the case reassigned to another district judge. The panel found that Wingate's July 2025 order, drafted with help from an AI tool, named people who were never parties, and that its corrected version cited a case that "does not even exist."
This story is based on the Fifth Circuit's published opinion in Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch (No. 25-60496), Judge Wingate's October 2025 letter on the episode, Senator Chuck Grassley's October 2025 release, and Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database, checked October 26, 2026. Wingate's clerk used Perplexity, the AI search tool compared in our ChatGPT vs Perplexity guide.
The short version
- The ruling: the Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction blocking Mississippi's H.B. 1193 and directed the Southern District of Mississippi's chief judge to assign the case "to a different district judge for all further proceedings."
- The panel: Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Judge Catharina Haynes joined only the final paragraph and concurred separately.
- The AI error: the corrected version of the July 2025 order cited Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 503 F.2d 422 (4th Cir. 1974). The opinion says: "That case does not even exist; it is an apparent AI hallucination."
- The explanation: Wingate told the federal courts' administrative office in October 2025 that a law clerk used Perplexity on an early draft that was docketed by mistake.
- Not decided: whether the Mississippi law is constitutional. The case goes back to a new judge.
Why did the Fifth Circuit remove Judge Wingate?
The panel said the case met the test for reassignment, which asks whether a judge would have "substantial difficulty" setting aside earlier views and errors, and whether reassignment is "advisable to preserve the appearance of justice." The opinion was blunt. "The proceedings in the district court were a botch job, to say the least," Smith wrote. It accused the judge of "issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications."
The opinion also went past the AI error. It said the district court, "or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent," ignored and manipulated governing law, "apparently to satisfy a policy agenda." Among its legal criticisms, the panel said the court skipped the analysis Moody v. NetChoice requires for facial challenges and misread Trump v. CASA.
According to the opinion, the original July 20 order named 11 plaintiffs who had never been parties to the case and two officials as defendants who weren't sued, and it cited declarations from four people who don't appear in the record. The errors the opinion describes:
| Problem | What the July 20, 2025 order did | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Parties | Named 11 plaintiffs who were never parties, and two officials as defendants who weren't sued | Fifth Circuit opinion |
| Case law | The corrected version, backdated to July 20, cited *Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk* (4th Cir. 1974), which doesn't exist | Fifth Circuit opinion |
| Statute | Attributed phrases to H.B. 1193, including "critical race theory," that aren't in it | Fifth Circuit opinion |
| Evidence | Cited declarations from four people who don't appear in the record | Fifth Circuit opinion |
| Correction | Replaced the order with a corrected version and called the errors "clerical" | Fifth Circuit opinion; Wingate's August 1, 2025 order, via ABA Journal |
Table 1The fake citation was found in the corrected order, which the August 2025 injunction incorporated by reference. Source: Fifth Circuit opinion of October 22, 2026; ABA Journal.
What did Judge Wingate say about the AI use?
At first, little. When Mississippi asked him to explain the errors, Wingate wrote on August 1, 2025, that "no further explanation is warranted," describing the fix as a correction of "inadvertent errors," the ABA Journal reported.
On October 6, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote to Wingate and to US District Judge Julien Xavier Neals of New Jersey, who had withdrawn a separate error-filled decision, asking whether they or their staff had used generative AI. "Article III judges should be held to a higher standard, given the binding force of their rulings," Grassley said.
Wingate answered in an October 21, 2025 letter to the director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. He said a law clerk used Perplexity "strictly as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket," as Reuters and FedScoop quoted the letter, and entered no sealed or non-public information. The July 20 order "was a draft that should have never been docketed," he wrote, and it skipped the chambers' usual review, including cite-checking. He said every draft now gets an independent review by a second clerk and that cited cases are printed from Westlaw and attached to final drafts.
The Fifth Circuit cited that account for the original order. As ComplexDiscovery notes, the opinion doesn't say how the corrected order, where the fake Cousins citation was discovered at oral argument, was prepared.
How common are AI hallucinations in court?
Common, and mostly not from judges. Damien Charlotin, a French lawyer and researcher, maintains a public database of court decisions dealing with hallucinated content in filings. When last updated on October 25, 2026, it listed 2,217 cases, 1,514 of them in the US.
By the database's own filters, 1,275 cases involve self-represented litigants, 879 involve lawyers, 32 involve judges, 17 experts and 5 prosecutors. These are tags on a volunteer-maintained list. Charlotin's database isn't comprehensive, and a Stanford Center for Internet and Society analysis of it in October 2025 noted that it changes quickly. The filter counts also add up to slightly less than the headline total.
For how AI answers go wrong outside courtrooms, see our report on fake statistics cited by AI answers. For a different kind of AI case in court, see our roundup of Anthropic's copyright lawsuits.
What's confirmed, reported and uncertain
- Confirmed (court records and letters): the October 22, 2026 opinion, the panel, the vacated injunction, the reassignment order, the quoted language, the nonexistent Cousins citation and the other errors in the table, Wingate's October 21, 2025 letter and Grassley's October 6, 2025 letter.
- Reported: the wording of Wingate's August 1, 2025 order, as reported by the ABA Journal.
- Uncertain: which judge will take the case, whether Mississippi's law will be enforced in the meantime, and how the corrected order came to include the fake citation.
About this story
Based on the sources linked below. How we report: Editorial standards.
Sources · 9
- Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, No. 25-60496, opinion — US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (October 22, 2026)
- Letter from Judge Henry T. Wingate to the Administrative Office of the US Courts — via Senator Grassley (October 21, 2025)
- Grassley scrutinizes federal judges' apparent AI use in drafting error-ridden rulings — Senate Judiciary Committee (October 6, 2025)
- AI Hallucination Cases database — Damien Charlotin (updated October 25, 2026)
- Use of Perplexity, ChatGPT behind error-ridden orders, federal judges say — FedScoop (October 23, 2025)
- Judge Whose Ruling Had AI-Generated Errors Sees Case Reassigned — Bloomberg Law (October 22, 2026)
Show all 9 sources
- 5th Circuit reassigns Mississippi DEI case after judge's orders cite fabricated parties, quotations and a nonexistent case — ComplexDiscovery (October 2026)
- 'No further explanation is warranted' for TRO opinion with made-up allegations, parties, federal judge says — ABA Journal (August 5, 2025)
- Who's submitting AI-tainted filings in court? — Stanford Center for Internet and Society (October 15, 2025)
Comments (0)