Staff Reports
The Fifth Circuit this week unloaded a rare and blistering rebuke on a district judge after finding that a court order blocking Mississippi’s anti‑DEI law was riddled with made‑up facts and likely helped along by generative AI. In a published opinion, the appeals court vacated the preliminary injunction against HB 1193, called the lower‑court work “a botch job,” and ordered the case reassigned to a different judge so the matter can be heard properly.
What the Fifth Circuit actually found
The panel, led by Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, said the district court’s temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction contained factual claims not supported by the record. The opinion says the TRO listed plaintiffs and defendants who never appeared, relied on nonexistent declarations, and even cited a Fourth Circuit decision that does not exist. The appeals court called the orders “sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications” and said the district court “ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.” That is unusually blunt language from an appellate court, and for good reason.
AI in the courthouse: a convenient excuse, not a get‑out‑of‑responsibility card
When Mississippi pointed out the errors, the district judge acknowledged that a law clerk used a generative‑AI tool in drafting the TRO. The Fifth Circuit noted that admission, even quipping that the district court “—or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent—ignored” controlling precedent. Let’s be clear: AI can help with drafting, but it cannot invent facts or replace proper supervision. Courts must set hard rules for AI use, and judges must be held to the same standards they expect from lawyers: verify sources, check facts, and write orders that match the record.
Reassignment, the next steps, and why conservatives should care
The appeals court did not decide whether HB 1193 is constitutional. Instead it vacated the injunction and sent the case back with instructions that the chief judge assign it to a different district judge who will consider the merits under established Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit law. That outcome matters: unelected judges should not be rewriting statutes or inventing harms to block laws that the legislature passed. This ruling also puts the spotlight on judicial oversight and the need for clear policies on AI, docket handling, and clerk supervision.
In plain terms: the system nearly failed here, and the fix is simple — enforce accountability. Judges who preside over federal power must follow the facts and the law, not policy wish lists or AI hallucinations. Lawmakers, judicial councils, and court administrators should act fast to tighten rules on AI and to ensure reassignment directives like this one are not the only check on courtroom carelessness. The public and the rule of law deserve nothing less.
