Fifth Circuit castigates AI rulings in school diversity policy case

Citing errors that appeared to be the result of AI hallucinations, the appeals panel overturned a Mississippi federal judge's preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a state law banning DEI at public schools and universities.(CN) — A Fifth Circuit panel on Thursday attacked a lower court’s use of artificial intelligence in issuing temporary rulings blocking a Mississippi law prohibiting diversity, equity and inclusion in public schools and universities.In a scathing opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith criticized U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a fellow Ronald Reagan appointee, for his rulings finding a group of teachers, students and parents were likely to succeed in their claims that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.The panel ordered that the case be assigned to a different judge on remand, finding that Wingate had based his decision “on impoverished legal analysis that barely paid lip-service to the precedents of the Supreme Court or this court, seeming at times purposely to misconstrue the law by manipulating the words of statutes and cases, without regard to their texts’ meaning as a whole.”The panel noted factual errors in a temporary restraining order that appeared to be the result of AI hallucinations, including naming plaintiffs and defendants who were not parties to the case, quoting terms that did not actually appear in the act and citing evidence not in the record.When U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, accused the court of having used AI to write the temporary restraining order, Wingate acknowledged the use of artificial intelligence, claiming a law clerk had used AI to write a draft of the order that was mistakenly docketed.While Wingate issued a corrected version of the order, the panel noted that version contains a citation to a non-existent case that appears to be another AI hallucination. The judges found this was also problematic for a subsequent preliminary injunction Wingate had issued.“Given that the preliminary injunction order ‘generally incorporates by reference its discussion and analysis in its TRO,’ the hallucinated case discussed above is arguably part of the shoddy reasoning of the preliminary injunction, too,” Smith wrote.The panel also criticized Wingate for failing to properly apply the standard for First Amendment facial challenges that the U.S. Supreme Court laid out in Moody v. NetChoice, which requires courts strike a law down only if the unconstitutional applications of the law significantly outweigh any constitutional ones.Instead of applying the appropriate analysis, the panel found, Wingate stretched the meaning of the law’s text and credited fears from the plaintiffs about possible hypothetical applications of the law.“The district court — or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent — ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda,” Smith wrote.U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Smith’s opinion. U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed with the majority’s ultimate holding but declined to sign on to most of the opinion.The Mississippi attorney general’s office, the ACLU of Mississippi — which represents the plaintiffs — and Wingate’s chambers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling sent outside of normal work hours.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads