Fifth Circuit Reassigns a Case After AI Hallucinations in a Judge’s Orders

On October 22, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate and ordered the case reassigned to a different judge, citing AI hallucinations in his orders along with errors of law. The case, Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, is a challenge to a Mississippi law on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public education. For lawyers, the news is less about the statute than about what happens when AI errors show up in a court’s own orders, and what an appeals court will do about it.

What Did the Fifth Circuit Decide?

Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Jerry Smith vacated the injunction and directed the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi to assign the case to a different district judge for all further proceedings, according to the opinion filed October 22, 2026. The opinion acknowledges that reassignment on remand is an “extraordinary” and “rarely invoked” power, then holds that this case “easily calls for reassignment.”

“The proceedings in the district court were a botch job, to say the least,” Smith wrote.

The panel’s reasons were not limited to AI. The opinion also says the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s framework for First Amendment facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and it gives the new judge instructions on how to apply it. Judge Kurt Engelhardt joined the opinion. Judge Catharina Haynes concurred only in its last paragraph, the one that vacates and orders reassignment. The Mississippi Center for Justice, which represents the plaintiffs, told Courthouse News Service on October 22 that it saw the ruling as a win in one respect, because the panel read the law as not barring classroom discussion of issues like race or sex.

What Went Wrong in the District Court’s Orders?

The opinion lays out the timeline. Wingate issued a temporary restraining order on July 20, 2025. According to the Fifth Circuit, that order named as plaintiffs eleven individuals and organizations that had never been parties, named two officials as defendants who were not sued, referred to declarations from four people who do not appear in the record, and quoted terms that do not appear in the statute. When the state pointed out the errors on July 22, 2025, the court replaced the order with a corrected version backdated to July 20 and called the errors “clerical.”

After Senator Chuck Grassley raised the possibility that AI had been used, Wingate acknowledged in a letter that a law clerk had used AI to help draft an earlier version of the order that was docketed by mistake, the opinion says. JURIST reported on October 23, 2026 that the admission came in October 2025. The corrected order still had a problem. At oral argument in the Fifth Circuit, it was discovered that it cited “Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk,” a 1974 Fourth Circuit case. The opinion’s verdict on that citation: “That case does not even exist; it is an apparent AI hallucination.” Because the August 18, 2025 preliminary injunction incorporated the TRO’s analysis by reference, the panel treated the fake citation as part of the injunction’s reasoning too.

On why reassignment was needed, the opinion says that given “the embarrassment of the AI hallucinations and mistakes of law,” the judge could be expected to have “substantial difficulty” setting aside his earlier views. Law.com’s National Law Journal quoted the same passage in its October 22 report. The opinion also says the district court, “or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent,” ignored governing law “apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.” That characterization is the panel majority’s; Wingate’s chambers had not responded to Courthouse News when it published.

Why Does This Matter for Lawyers and Courts?

As JURIST noted, courts have increasingly confronted legal officials misusing AI in court filings. This case is about a court’s own orders, and it shows that a court’s own AI errors can become an appellate issue, and that the remedy can go beyond a corrected order. For litigators, the practical lesson is that checking citations now means checking the court’s orders as well as the other side’s briefs. In this case, the fake citation in the corrected order was not caught until the appeal was argued.

The same week brought two more reminders that verification duties now run in every direction. In an October 21, 2026 decision, the Federal Labor Relations Authority found that more than half of the legal or record citations in a Department of Health and Human Services brief were fictitious, erroneous or irrelevant, Federal News Network reported on October 23. The authority wrote that “nothing prohibits parties from using AI tools,” but that “AI continues to present significant risks of error.” And on October 20, the Canadian Judicial Council published a second edition of its AI guidelines for judges, with what it calls clearer guardrails for permissible, borderline and impermissible uses and stronger emphasis on judicial oversight.

In the U.S., the federal judiciary has issued interim AI guidance to courts. Its September 17, 2026 release says courts have been cautioned not to delegate core judicial functions to AI and that users remain accountable for work done with AI’s help.

What to Watch

Watch three things. First, whether the federal judiciary rolls out the additional AI guidance it has said is coming, and whether it addresses chambers use of AI, including by law clerks. Second, whether other appellate courts cite this opinion when a lower court order contains AI errors, which would make reassignment a recognized remedy rather than a one-off. Third, what happens on remand in Mississippi, where a new judge will apply the panel’s instructions. For firms, the immediate step is simple: add court orders to the documents your team cite-checks before relying on them.

FAQ

What did the Fifth Circuit order on October 22, 2026?

It vacated Judge Wingate’s preliminary injunction and directed that the case be assigned to a different district judge, per the opinion.

Did the judge admit AI was used?

Yes. The opinion says Wingate acknowledged that a law clerk used AI to help draft an earlier version of the order that was docketed by mistake.

Was AI the only reason for reassignment?

No. The opinion also cites mistakes of law, including the district court’s handling of the Moody v. NetChoice standard.

Do federal judges have AI rules?

The judiciary has issued interim guidance cautioning courts not to delegate core judicial functions to AI, according to its September 17, 2026 release.