Preparing the requested public record.
Preparing the requested public record.
S.D. Mississippi · Jul 20, 2025
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The TRO Order states that “[t]he Amended Complaint names the following Plaintiffs”: “Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE)”; “Dr. Daphne Chamberlain – faculty member at Tougaloo College”; “Dr. Robert Luckett – faculty member at Jackson State University”; “Dr. Brian Pugh - executive director of the Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University”; “Z. Luckett – parent of public school children in Mississippi”; “Mississippi Votes – a nonprofit organization focused on civic engagement”; “Black Student Union at Jackson State University”; “Spectrum – a student organization at Jackson State University representing LGBTQ+ students”;…
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The TRO Order states that “[t]he Amended Complaint names the following Plaintiffs”: “Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE)”; “Dr. Daphne Chamberlain – faculty member at Tougaloo College”; “Dr. Robert Luckett – faculty member at Jackson State University”; “Dr. Brian Pugh - executive director of the Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University”; “Z. Luckett – parent of public school children in Mississippi”; “Mississippi Votes – a nonprofit organization focused on civic engagement”; “Black Student Union at Jackson State University”; “Spectrum – a student organization at Jackson State University representing LGBTQ+ students”; “Aidan Carr – student at Millsaps College”; “Christopher Brent – student at Jackson State University”; “Mississippi Library Association”; and “Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. – Mississippi Chapters.” ECF #51 at 1, n.1. As confirmed by this Court’s docket, of the parties identified in footnote 1 of the TRO Order as “Plaintiffs,” only one—viz., Mississippi Association of Educators1—is or has ever been a named plaintiff in this case. See ECF #1, #22 Outcome: Judge withdrew the order. Story here, including a link to the original order full of hallucinations.Judge did not explain why he withdrew the original order and replaced it with a new one, prompting counsel to move for a preservation of the record and an explanation (motion).The judge dismissed the motion on 1 August 2025, stating: "The original version of that Order contained clerical errors referencing improper parties and factual allegations. The Court promptly corrected those errors and issued an Amended and Corrected TRO on the docket. [...] The Court corrected the record, notified the parties, and the corrected TRO is the controlling order. No further explanation is warranted."In the context of a subsequent congressional investigation, the judge explained what happened, and blamed his law clerk.
Judges blaming law clerks still draw congressional inquiries; chambers need written AI policies matching firms'.
Perplexity is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Judge withdrew the order
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.