Judge Henry Wingate AI Errors Fifth Circuit Reassigns DEI Case

On October 22, 2026, the Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that had blocked Mississippi’s anti-DEI law, House Bill 1193, and directed that the lawsuit be reassigned to a different federal district judge. The ruling followed a long-running controversy: Judge Henry Wingate’s July 2025 TRO contained AI-linked errors, including a citation to a case that does not exist, and the judge later acknowledged that a law clerk had used the AI tool Perplexity in preparing an early draft.

Quick Facts: Why Did the Fifth Circuit Reassign the Case?

Question	Answer
Which judge was involved?	U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate, Southern District of Mississippi (on the bench since 1985).
Which court ruled?	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).
Panel	Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith (author), Catharina Haynes and Kurt D. Engelhardt.
Date of ruling	October 22, 2026.
Case	Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, No. 25-60496 (appeal).
Law challenged	Mississippi House Bill 1193 (2025), restricting DEI practices in public K-12 schools and public colleges.
What the court did	Vacated the preliminary injunction and ordered the case reassigned to a different district judge.
AI tool involved	Perplexity, used by a law clerk on an early draft of the July 2025 temporary restraining order (TRO).
What went wrong	Wrong parties named, unsupported factual assertions, and a citation to a court case the Fifth Circuit said does not exist.
Was AI the only reason?	No. The court also found serious legal-analysis errors and a failure to apply binding Supreme Court precedent.
Was Judge Wingate fired?	No. He was removed from this one lawsuit, not from the federal bench.
Is HB 1193 now declared constitutional?	No. The injunction is gone, but the constitutional challenge is still pending.
What happens next?	A new district judge must reconsider the case under the Fifth Circuit’s instructions.

Two points are easy to get wrong, and many headlines blur them:

Reassignment is not removal from office. Judge Wingate is still a federal judge. He no longer presides over this case.

Vacating an injunction is not a final ruling on constitutionality. The law is no longer blocked by that injunction, but the underlying First Amendment and vagueness claims remain unresolved.

The decision was also not a simple rebuke of AI use. The Fifth Circuit found that the injunction suffered from independent legal problems, including a failure to properly apply the Supreme Court’s framework for facial First Amendment challenges.

Timeline of the Case

Date	Event
April 2025	Mississippi Legislature passes HB 1193; Governor Tate Reeves signs it.
June 9, 2025	Teachers, professors, students, parents and advocacy groups sue, represented by the ACLU of Mississippi and the Mississippi Center for Justice.
June 24, 2025	Judge Wingate hears arguments on emergency relief.
July 1, 2025	HB 1193 takes effect.
July 20, 2025	Judge Wingate issues a TRO blocking enforcement; the filed version contains serious errors.
July 2025	The state raises the errors; the court replaces the order with a corrected version and removes the original from the docket.
August 18, 2025	Judge Wingate grants a preliminary injunction.
September 16, 2025	Mississippi appeals to the Fifth Circuit.
October 6, 2025	Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley writes to the judiciary asking about AI use in the order.
October 21, 2025	Judge Wingate responds, acknowledging a law clerk used Perplexity as a drafting assistant and that an unreviewed draft was docketed.
August 21, 2026	The Fifth Circuit clerk tells the lawyers to be ready to argue whether the case should be reassigned.
August 31, 2026	Oral argument before the three-judge panel.
October 22, 2026	Fifth Circuit vacates the injunction and orders reassignment.

1. What Is Mississippi HB 1193?

House Bill 1193 was passed in the 2025 legislative session and signed by Governor Tate Reeves. It took effect on July 1, 2025. It regulates public K-12 schools and public institutions of higher learning in Mississippi. According to the law’s supporters, it is meant to ensure decisions about employment, academic opportunity and institutional programs are based on merit rather than race, sex, color or national origin.

In general terms, HB 1193 addresses:

DEI offices, programs and mandatory diversity-training activities at public institutions.

Diversity statements and preferences in specified hiring, admissions and employment decisions.
Instruction and official activities involving what the law labels “divisive concepts.”
Compliance, administrative and reporting processes tied to those restrictions.

The statute also contains exceptions, including for certain scholarly and creative work, certain student-group activities, and compliance with other state or federal law. Because the exceptions shape how far the law reaches, they became central to the litigation.

Who the law regulates matters. The Fifth Circuit concluded that HB 1193 regulates public schools, colleges and their employees. It does not regulate students. That was also the state’s position on appeal, through Deputy Solicitor General Anthony Shults.

2. Who Sued, and What Did They Argue?

The case is Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch. The plaintiffs include the Jackson Federation of Teachers, United Campus Workers Southeast Local 3821, student and advocacy organizations, and individual educators, students and parents. The defendants include Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch and officials connected to state education bodies. The plaintiffs’ lawyers include Rob McDuff of the Mississippi Center for Justice and Joshua Tom of the ACLU of Mississippi.

The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that lets people sue state officials for violating federal constitutional rights. They argued that HB 1193:

Violates the First Amendment by restricting protected expression and educational discussion.
Is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving educators unsure what is prohibited.
Raises equal protection concerns, according to the claims as described in public reporting.

At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel argued the law reaches further than its supporters claim and could chill classroom discussion of subjects such as the role of slavery in the Civil War. The plaintiffs also said the law had already led to the discontinuation of DEI programming at campuses including Jackson State University, Alcorn State University and Hinds Community College.

The state argued that public institutions have broad authority over their own curricula, programs and spending, and that the law regulates government conduct rather than private student expression.

Fifth Circuit Removes Judge Henry Wingate From Mississippi DEI Case After AI Errors, What Happened?

3. The July 2025 TRO and the AI Errors

A temporary restraining order (TRO) is an emergency, short-term court order meant to preserve the status quo until the court can hold a fuller hearing. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a TRO is generally limited in duration (14 days, with a possible extension). It is not a final decision on the merits.

Judge Wingate issued a TRO on July 20, 2025. The version first placed on the public docket contained serious defects. According to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, these included:

Wrong parties. The order named 11 individuals and organizations that were not plaintiffs, and two officials who had not been sued.
Unsupported factual assertions. The order stated that certain institutions had already canceled DEI programming because of the law, and described restrictions on staff at another school, without support in the record.
Misdescriptions of the statute and statements about its effects that the record did not support.
A citation to a nonexistent case. The order cited Cousins v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 503 F.2d 422 (4th Cir. 1974). The Fifth Circuit said no such decision exists.

An invented case citation is the signature of an AI “hallucination”: a language model producing text that looks authoritative but is not grounded in real sources.

What happened next. After Mississippi’s attorneys raised the problems, the court replaced the original order with a corrected one and removed the flawed version from public view, explaining that it was an erroneous draft and retaining it could cause confusion. The state argued that the original should be preserved so the record would be complete. The episode drew national attention and the attention of Congress.

4. What Judge Wingate Said: The Grassley Letter

On October 6, 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote to the federal judiciary asking for an explanation. Judge Wingate answered in a letter dated October 21, 2025, sent to the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Key points from the judge’s explanation:

A law clerk used Perplexity as a “foundational drafting assistant” to synthesize information from the public docket.
The clerk did not enter sealed, privileged or confidential information into the tool.
The July 20 order was an early draft that had not gone through the chambers’ normal review and should not have been docketed.
He described the failure as one of human oversight.
He adopted new safeguards: a second law clerk independently reviews all draft opinions and orders, and cited cases are printed from Westlaw and attached for review.

Wingate was not the only federal judge to answer Senator Grassley on AI-related errors in 2025; the controversy prompted wider discussion of AI use in judicial chambers.

5. The Preliminary Injunction

On August 18, 2025, Judge Wingate granted a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of key provisions of HB 1193 statewide and class-wide pending final resolution. He concluded the law was at odds with the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague.

A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a party seeking one must generally show:

A likelihood of success on the merits;
A likelihood of irreparable harm without relief;
That the balance of equities favors relief; and
That an injunction is in the public interest.

Mississippi appealed on September 16, 2025. The Fifth Circuit later determined that the injunction incorporated the flawed July order’s analysis by reference, so the problems in that order carried over into the injunction now under review.

6. What the Fifth Circuit Decided on October 22, 2026

Part one: the injunction was vacated

The panel vacated the preliminary injunction. Practically, the injunction no longer stands in the way of enforcement of the challenged provisions. The lawsuit itself continues.

Part two: the case was reassigned

The Fifth Circuit directed that the case go to a different district judge for all further proceedings. Appellate courts have statutory authority to direct such remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2106, which allows them to “require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”

The court’s reasoning, in plain terms:

The record showed a combination of fabricated or unsupported facts, a nonexistent citation, incomplete correction, and flawed legal analysis.
A judge who has already committed to earlier views formed through that analysis may have difficulty setting them aside.
Reassignment helps preserve the appearance of justice and public confidence in the proceedings.
The benefits outweighed the cost of restarting before a new judge.

The court did not find that Judge Wingate was biased for a political party, and it did not announce a rule that any judge who uses AI must be removed from a case. A judge whose ruling is reversed is not disqualified for that reason alone.

Independent legal errors

The panel also faulted the district court for:

Not properly applying the Supreme Court’s framework for facial First Amendment challenges.
Inadequately addressing the state’s arguments.
Misapplying the standard for preliminary relief.
Issuing relief broader than the law justified.

7. What the Fifth Circuit Said About HB 1193 Itself

The opinion gives the new judge a roadmap. It is not a final ruling that every part of HB 1193 is constitutional.

The facial challenge framework

The panel directed the district court to apply Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024). Under that framework, a court must:

Determine what the law covers and whom it regulates.
Identify which applications are constitutional and which are not.
Decide whether the unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh the constitutional ones.

It is not enough to point to a few troubling hypotheticals and conclude the whole law must fall.

Government speech and public-employee speech

The court emphasized that states have broad authority over what publicly funded schools teach, which textbooks and curricula they use, and what official messages they convey. For educators speaking as public employees, the court pointed to the line of cases including Garcetti v. Ceballos (speech made pursuant to official duties) and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), along with the traditional balancing of government and employee interests under Pickering v. Board of Education.

Provisions that need closer analysis

The court did not treat every provision identically. Some restrictions may simply prohibit conduct that is already unlawful discrimination under federal law, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (programs receiving federal funds), Title VII (employment) and the Equal Protection Clause. Others, such as limits on certain awareness training or on expressing certain views about meritocracy and equal treatment, require provision-by-provision constitutional analysis.

So can Mississippi enforce HB 1193 now?

The vacated injunction no longer blocks enforcement. But the lawsuit remains active, and the new judge may consider new requests for relief. Institutions should watch for further orders, and may wish to seek advice from their own counsel.

8. Was Judge Wingate Fired, Impeached or Disciplined?

No. This is the most misunderstood part of the story.

Reassignment moves one lawsuit to another judge. It is an administrative appellate remedy.
Federal judges hold office during “good behavior” under Article III of the Constitution. They can be removed only through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
Separate from that, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364) allows complaints about judicial misconduct or disability to be reviewed within the judiciary. The October 22 decision did not announce any disciplinary sanction.

Headlines saying the judge was “ejected” or “removed” refer to the reassignment of this case only.

9. How Does This Change the Debate About AI in the Courts?

AI-generated errors have previously led to sanctions against lawyers. The best-known early example is Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023), in which attorneys were sanctioned for filing a brief with fabricated cases produced by a chatbot. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) requires lawyers to certify that legal contentions are warranted by existing law after reasonable inquiry, and many courts have since applied it to AI-generated filings.

This case is different because the errors surfaced in a judicial order, and an appeals court relied on them, together with other deficiencies, to vacate an injunction and reassign the case.

Key lessons for courts, lawyers and the public:

Verify every citation. Confirm each case exists and supports the stated proposition.
Verify every factual statement against the record.
Human review is non-negotiable. Judges have a duty of diligence and competence in performing their duties under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Confidentiality. Entering non-public case material into public AI tools raises separate risks.
Transparency. The correction and retention of flawed drafts affects public trust in the record.

The Fifth Circuit did not ban judges from using AI. The message is that AI may assist, but it cannot replace independent verification and judgment.

10. What Happens Next?

The Southern District of Mississippi’s chief judge must assign a new judge. Issues likely to be addressed:

Scope. Which activities and people HB 1193 reaches, including the effect of its exceptions.
First Amendment claims. Which applications, if any, are unconstitutional, under the facial-challenge framework.
Vagueness. Whether the law’s terms give fair notice under the applicable standard.
Remedy. Whether any new preliminary relief is justified and whether it can be tailored appropriately, an issue made more significant by recent Supreme Court limits on broad “universal” injunctions, which push plaintiffs toward properly certified classes or narrower relief.

Further motions and further appeals are possible. The plaintiffs may ask the full Fifth Circuit to reconsider or seek Supreme Court review. As of October 23, 2026, the October 22 opinion is the latest major development, and no final judgment on HB 1193’s constitutionality has been entered.

Who Is Affected?

Public school teachers and college faculty: The law regulates public educators and institutions; the injunction no longer shields them from enforcement of the challenged provisions.
Students: According to the Fifth Circuit, the law does not regulate students themselves.
Public institutions and administrators: Compliance obligations and risk assessments may need to be revisited.
Plaintiff groups: The case continues; they can press their claims before the new judge.
Lawyers and courts: A reminder of verification duties when using AI tools.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was Judge Henry Wingate removed from the Mississippi DEI case?

The Fifth Circuit ordered reassignment because of the combination of AI-linked fabricated facts and a nonexistent citation in the court’s orders, the incomplete handling of those errors, deficient legal analysis and an overly broad injunction.

Which AI tool was used?

Perplexity, according to Judge Wingate’s October 21, 2025 letter. It was not ChatGPT.

What fake case did the court identify?

Cousins v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, cited as 503 F.2d 422 (4th Cir. 1974). The Fifth Circuit said it does not exist.

Did the judge admit to using AI?

Yes. He said a law clerk used Perplexity to help draft an early version of the order and that the unreviewed draft was docketed by mistake.

Did AI use automatically invalidate the order?

No. The court considered the AI-linked errors alongside the legal errors and the circumstances as a whole.

Did the appeals court strike down or uphold HB 1193?

Neither, finally. It vacated the preliminary injunction. The constitutional challenge continues before a new judge.

Can Mississippi enforce HB 1193 now?

The vacated injunction no longer blocks enforcement, but the case remains active and new requests for relief are possible.

Was Judge Wingate disciplined or impeached?

No discipline was announced in the October 22 decision, and he remains a federal district judge.

Does the law apply to students?

The Fifth Circuit concluded it regulates public schools, colleges and their employees, not students.

Does this mean teachers can’t discuss race or discrimination?

No blanket conclusion follows. The court stressed that each provision and application must be analyzed, and the statute has exceptions.

Is this the first time AI errors have appeared in court?

No. Lawyers have been sanctioned for AI-generated fake citations since at least 2023. This case is notable because the errors appeared in a judge’s order and contributed to reassignment.

Can a federal judge be removed for AI mistakes?

Removal requires impeachment and conviction. Misconduct complaints can be filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Reassigning a case is a separate, narrower remedy.

The Bottom Line

The Fifth Circuit’s October 22, 2026 decision does two things: it lifts the injunction that had blocked Mississippi’s HB 1193, and it sends the case to a new judge. It does not remove Judge Wingate from the bench, and it does not finally decide whether the law is constitutional.

The lasting lesson is about verification. AI can help draft, but a court order that merely looks authoritative is not enough. When rights depend on the accuracy of a judicial decision, every fact and citation must be checked by a human.

Legal disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Court cases can change quickly; the status of HB 1193 may change as the case returns to the district court or through further appellate proceedings. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.

Sources

Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, No. 25-60496 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2026), full opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-60496/25-60496-2026-10-22.html
Mississippi House Bill 1193 (2025), official legislative text: https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2025/html/HB/1100-1199/HB1193SG.htm
Judge Henry Wingate’s October 21, 2025 letter regarding judiciary use of AI: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wingate_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf
Mississippi Today, “DEI ban, Wingate, AI, Mississippi” (Sept. 1, 2026): https://mississippitoday.org/2026/09/01/dei-ban-wingate-ai-mississippi/
Courthouse News Service, “AI Hallucinations Derail Debate Over Mississippi’s DEI Ban in Schools”: https://www.courthousenews.com/ai-hallucinations-derail-debate-over-mississippis-dei-ban-in-schools/
Mississippi Today, “Federal judge temporarily blocks Mississippi’s new DEI ban” (July 2025): https://www.wlox.com/2025/07/21/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-mississippis-new-dei-ban
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/22-277/
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/21-418/
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023)
28 U.S.C. § 2106; 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 65; U.S. Const. art. III
Federal Judicial Center, Henry Travillion Wingate: https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/wingate-henry-travillion

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.