A federal judge has been removed from a case challenging Mississippi’s anti-DEI law after the Fifth Circuit criticized his management of the case as a “botch job.” The appeals court highlighted numerous factual inaccuracies, including an apparent misattribution to a nonexistent AI-generated case citation and incorrect applications of Supreme Court precedent.
In a ruling by Judge Jerry Smith, who was appointed by Reagan, the court vacated the preliminary injunction that Judge Henry Wingate, also a Reagan appointee, had issued, which blocked the law. The appeals court ordered that the case be reassigned to a different judge—this is described as an “extraordinary” action that’s “rarely invoked.”
Smith remarked that Wingate had “carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications,” suggesting that, in his opinion, the district court—or possibly its AI assistant—mismanaged the relevant law to meet a certain policy agenda.
The issues began when Wingate issued a temporary restraining order in July following a lawsuit from a group of teachers, parents, and students, who argued that the Mississippi law restricting DEI practices was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Wingate revised the order just two days later after officials from Mississippi pointed out major factual errors, including incorrect listings of several plaintiffs and defendants, along with unsupported claims about schools allegedly canceling DEI programs due to the law.
The initial TRO also referenced declarations from individuals who didn’t appear to be part of the case—and they might not even exist, as noted by the Fifth Circuit. It also cited terms that weren’t found in the actual law, such as “race or sex stereotyping” and “critical race theory.”
Smith expressed gratitude that the defendants had submitted the original TRO in court documents since Wingate had kept it hidden from the public eye.
Even after corrections were made, the revised TRO still contained errors, including a reference to a nonexistent case, which the Fifth Circuit termed “an apparent AI hallucination.” This citation was discussed in relation to the connection between temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, indicating further flaws in Wingate’s reasoning.
In a response to accusations of AI use, Wingate admitted that a law clerk had incorporated AI into drafting the TRO but claimed the errors were merely “clerical” and did not compromise the core legal reasoning.
The Fifth Circuit was not convinced, questioning how such numerous inaccuracies could fail to impact the fundamental legal reasoning or the validity of the final judgment.
The appeals court pointed out significant flaws in Wingate’s legal understanding, especially concerning how he interpreted Supreme Court decisions connected to free speech challenges, as well as misapplying injunction limits and mishandling legal protections for government and public employment speech.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Moody v. NetChoice, where a specific two-step analysis must be employed for First Amendment challenges seeking to nullify a law.
According to the Moody framework, a law can only be invalidated on First Amendment grounds if the unconstitutional applications vastly outweigh any constitutional ones. However, the Fifth Circuit took issue with Wingate’s dismissive phrasing regarding the need for this framework.
Smith criticized Wingate for indicating that the Moody analysis was “supposedly” required, suggesting that this raised concerns about Wingate’s genuine effort to adhere to the law.
He further noted that the district court’s negligence in following Supreme Court authority was yet another factor undermining the preliminary injunction.
The appeals court also took issue with Wingate’s rationale for granting preliminary relief, expressing concern over his assertion that the court should act cautiously when faced with unsettled legal areas that might have severe consequences.
This, Smith remarked, misrepresented the entire principle of injunctive relief, stating that a preliminary injunction can’t merely be based on potential success on substantive issues.
The court also noted that Wingate had misread the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Trump v. CASA, which advises that judges should refrain from issuing overly broad orders beyond what is necessary to protect the plaintiffs.
Smith emphasized that this misinterpretation stood in stark contrast to CASA’s guidance against excessive relief and the need for judges to tailor their decisions to what is strictly required.
The Fifth Circuit has now sent the case back to the Southern District of Mississippi for reassignment to a new judge for further consideration.
