By What the Fifth Circuit decided
The opinion, No. 25-60496, was written by Judge Jerry E. Smith for a panel of Judges Smith, Haynes and Engelhardt and filed October 22, 2026. It reviews Judge Henry Wingate's preliminary injunction against Mississippi's House Bill 1193, a 2025 law on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public education.
- The injunction is vacated. The panel found the district court got the law wrong, apart from the AI problems, and sent the case back.
- The case goes to a new judge. The Chief Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi is directed to assign it to a different district judge for all further proceedings.
- The AI errors drove the reassignment. The court applied its test for reassignment on remand and held that a judge who "merely excised the AI-hallucinated 'facts'" without explaining why the order still stood would reasonably be expected to have substantial difficulty setting aside his earlier views.
- One concurrence. Judge Haynes concurred only in the last paragraph of the majority opinion, the part that vacates and reassigns.
The opinion calls the district proceedings "a botch job" and says the judge "carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications."
What was wrong with the orders
The facts below come from the opinion itself, which cites the district court docket.
| Step | What the opinion says |
|---|---|
| Original TRO, entered July 20, 2025 | Named plaintiffs and defendants who aren't in the complaint, cited "declarations" from people who don't exist or never appeared, quoted text that isn't in H.B. 1193, and described programs the law had supposedly ended that appear to be fictitious |
| Replacement TRO | Docketed July 22 but backdated to July 20, with no explanation. The court called the errors "clerical" and refused to restore the original to the docket |
| The judge's explanation | After Senator Charles Grassley raised AI use, Judge Wingate said a law clerk had used AI to help draft an earlier version that was docketed by mistake, and that the errors didn't touch "core legal reasoning" |
| "Corrected" TRO | Still cited "Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 503 F.2d 422 (4th Cir. 1974)". The panel found the case doesn't exist: that page sits inside a Sixth Circuit case and the pincite lands in a Second Circuit case |
| Preliminary injunction, August 18, 2025 | Incorporated the TRO's analysis by reference, so the hallucinated citation carried into the order on appeal |
The panel also noted it was "lucky" the defendants had attached the original TRO as an exhibit, because the district court kept it from public view.
What it means for litigators
AI hallucination rulings usually deal with a party's filing. This one turns the duty around: a court order with hallucinated content is a ground for appeal, and the opinion shows what the losing side did that made the record usable.
- Check the order like you'd check opposing counsel's brief. Pull every cited case and every quoted statute. Here the fake case in the "corrected" order was only discovered at oral argument in the Fifth Circuit.
- Save the original. Download each order the day it's docketed. If it's replaced, the first version may be the only proof of what the court relied on, and here it survived only because the defendants filed it as an exhibit.
- Put the problem on the record. The defendants asked the district court to restore the original order and explain the inaccuracies. The denial, and the "clerical" label, became part of the appellate record.
- Separate the AI errors from the legal errors. The panel vacated on the law and reassigned because of the hallucinations. An appeal that argues both gives the court two independent grounds.
- Ask for reassignment only when the record supports it. The opinion stresses that reassignment is "extraordinary" and "rarely invoked." What tipped it here was a judge who removed the false facts without explaining why the order still held.
What the opinion doesn't decide
The opinion doesn't sanction or discipline Judge Wingate; it vacates an injunction and reassigns a case. It doesn't rule on whether H.B. 1193 is constitutional either. The new district judge will hear the challenge again under instructions the panel lays out, including the Supreme Court's facial challenge framework in Moody v. NetChoice. Nor does it set a rule for how judges may use AI. For the rules judges set for lawyers, see how many federal judges require AI disclosure.
Sources
- Fifth Circuit opinion in Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, No. 25-60496, filed Oct 22, 2026 and read Oct 23, 2026 (PDF, 28 pages)
- Same opinion on CourtListener
Questions and answers
What did the Fifth Circuit decide in Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch?
On October 22, 2026 it vacated the preliminary injunction against Mississippi's H.B. 1193 and directed that the case be assigned to a different district judge, citing AI-hallucinated facts and a nonexistent case in the district judge's orders along with errors of law.
Did the judge use AI to write the order?
According to the opinion, Judge Wingate said a law clerk used AI to help draft an earlier version of the temporary restraining order that was docketed by mistake. The panel found that even the corrected order still cited a case that doesn't exist.
What was the fake case in the Wingate order?
"Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 503 F.2d 422 (4th Cir. 1974)". The Fifth Circuit found no such case: that page falls inside United States v. Anderson, a Sixth Circuit decision, and the pincite points to a Second Circuit case.
Was Judge Wingate sanctioned or disciplined?
Not in this opinion. The Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction and ordered reassignment under its own precedent; it doesn't address discipline. Reassignment on remand is a case-management remedy, not a sanction.
What should a lawyer do if a court order contains AI errors?
Verify every citation and quote in the order, save a copy of the original as docketed, raise the errors on the record with a request to correct or explain them, and keep those filings for appeal. In Fitch the defendants' exhibit of the original order was what let the appellate court see what had been replaced.
Operational information, not legal advice. Every fact on this page comes from the Fifth Circuit opinion cited above, read October 23, 2026; quotes are the court's words. The checklist is our suggestion, not a rule of any court. Prepared with AI assistance from the opinion and reviewed by AI Vortex.