Appeals court weighs reassigning case after judge used AI to draft rul
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit directed lawyers to prepare arguments on whether a federal judge should be reassigned after issuing a court order containing errors attributed to artificial intelligence use Reuters.
Judge's AI-Assisted Order Generated Fabricated Citations
U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate of Jackson, Mississippi acknowledged that a law clerk used Perplexity "as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket" Reuters. The resulting opinion was docketed in the case *Jackson Federation of Teachers et al. v. Lynn Fitch et al.*, a dispute over Mississippi's anti-DEI law.
Wingate later stated that "the docketed opinion was a draft that should have never been docketed. This was a mistake." The appellate court found that the order contained "names and persons that didn't exist, and based upon authorities and statements that didn't exist" Law.com.
Circuit Judge Jerry Smith characterized the temporary restraining order as relying on fabricated legal support, stating it was based on "names that didn't even exist and statements that didn't even exist."
Fifth Circuit Considers Judicial Reassignment
The appellate proceedings in Fifth Circuit case no. 25-60496 mark an escalation beyond the initial disclosure of AI use. Rather than simply vacating the flawed order, the court is examining whether the errors warrant removing Wingate from the case entirely—a step that would signal concern about the judge's judgment in deploying generative AI tools for legal drafting without adequate review.
The August 24 directive represents a concrete instance of AI-generated legal errors entering the judicial system and triggering appellate scrutiny. Unlike hypothetical concerns about AI in courtrooms, this case documents specific harm: a court order grounded in citations and authorities that do not exist, potentially affecting the rights of litigants in a high-profile constitutional dispute.
Broader Implications for Judicial AI Use
The case underscores a core operational risk when AI agents—in this instance, an AI tool used as a drafting assistant—operate without human verification at critical checkpoints. A law clerk's use of Perplexity to synthesize docket materials bypassed the validation step necessary to ensure cited authorities actually exist and accurately represent law.
No criminal penalties, regulatory fines, or sanctions have been reported in connection with the order's issuance, though the reassignment hearing itself represents a form of judicial accountability. The Fifth Circuit's decision to hold arguments on reassignment will likely set a precedent for how appellate courts handle judicial use of generative AI tools in opinion drafting.