Errors in Legal Opinions by Judge Neals
Typos happen, right? It seems a petition by U.S. District Court Judge Julian Neals has brought attention to some rather curious issues regarding quotation attributions in his legal opinions.
On June 30, 2025, Neals released an opinion that caught the eye of Attorney Andrew Lichtman. Lichtman represented the defendant in a recent civil case and, well, he noticed some mistakes.
In a letter to the court, Lichtman pointed out several errors, including three instances where the outcomes of cases were misrepresented—like misreading a dismissal motion as granted instead of denied. In addition, he noted several citations that were inaccurately attributed to decisions that didn’t exist in the referenced cases. It’s a bit concerning, to say the least.
Lichtman claims he identified six major mistakes. He provided various quotes he says Neals incorrectly attributed to cases where they simply don’t show up.
Day really gets the best!
Biden-appointed federal judge Julian Neals is under fire for issuing opinions with dubious citations and completely false case outcomes.https://t.co/xiafno6zps
– Anncoulter (@Anncoulter) July 27, 2025
No need to take Lichtman’s word for it. Just do a quick “Control + F”. Neals cited a case, Warwick City Resignation System V. Catalent, Inc., claiming, “The lack of insider trading is not negative.” But the quotes he referred to? They just aren’t there in the document.
Furthermore, Lichtman pointed out that Neals claimed he “isn’t two quotes to the accused that they were not said to have made them.” This all seems rather perplexing.
Following Lichtman’s letter, Neals reevaluated his opinion, as reported by Bloomberg News. Neals admitted that “the opinions and orders were entered incorrectly.” Quite the oversight.
With no comments from either Neals or Lichtman, many are speculating that something else might be at play here. The odd nature of these opinions has led some to suggest the possible misuse of artificial intelligence in drafting them.
A blog called Volokh Conspiracy, run by legal scholars, insinuated that perhaps Neals, or even his law clerk, made these errors. Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor, speculated that many judges might be producing flawed opinions and advised litigators to scrutinize potentially erroneous orders more critically. An interesting approach for sure.
Blackman suspects that the law clerk, rather than Neals, may bear more responsibility for these mistakes. He argued that a closer examination of judges and their clerks could be necessary, suggesting that most judges might not have checked the quotes.
He even proposed that “detective-like” analysis could uncover patterns of misconduct among judges across the nation. This raises a bigger question: can we really trust the judicial system?
Neals was nominated to the district court in February 2015 by then-President Obama and was renominated in March 2021 by President Biden, alongside other judicial candidates, including Ketanji Brown Jackson. Biden’s recent statements emphasized the need for diversity on the federal bench, aiming to reflect the varied backgrounds of the American populace.
While the goals of diversity are commendable, this situation raises eyebrows. Biden’s previous selections have drawn criticism, sometimes for underperformance. It’s a difficult balance to strike—picking individuals for their qualifications while also adhering to diversity standards.
Reflecting on the recent appointments under such criteria, one might wonder how these influences shape the overall quality of judicial decisions.
As for Judge Neals and his future opinions, it seems there may be greater scrutiny to come. It’s all rather fascinating—and perhaps troubling—looking ahead.
