By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of The Andrew Branca Show.

When a judge lets a computer write the law, the result can be a courtroom nightmare.

The Mississippi Law Targeting DEI Programs

In April 2025, Mississippi enacted House Bill 1193, a sweeping measure designed to keep public‑education dollars out of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The statute bars government‑run schools from requiring diversity training, punishing students for their views on DEI, endorsing DEI through curricula, or otherwise engaging in activities that promote the ideology. It also creates an administrative process to investigate alleged violations, complete with sanctions for non‑compliance.

Supporters of the bill argue it protects students from “racially divisive concepts” and preserves parental rights, while critics contend it amounts to viewpoint discrimination that chills free speech in classrooms. The law quickly became the focus of a pre‑enforcement lawsuit filed in June 2025 by a coalition of teachers, a campus union, student groups and parents who claim the statute is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry Wingate’s Troubled Orders

U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 20, 2025, halting enforcement of the law while the case proceeded. Within hours, the defendants filed a motion pointing out glaring factual errors in the order. In response, Judge Wingate removed the original TRO from the docket and replaced it with a revised version that was back‑dated to the same July 20 filing date.

During oral argument before the Fifth Circuit, attorneys discovered that the revised TRO cited a Fourth Circuit case, Cousins v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, that does not exist. The citation was a classic AI hallucination—an invented precedent generated by artificial‑intelligence software the judge admitted using to draft the order. As one attorney noted, “the document contained hallucinated information, namely a citation to a purported Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Cousins v. School Board of City of Norfolk, that does not exist.”

Congressional and Senate Reactions

The AI‑driven blunder drew national attention, prompting U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley to publicly criticize Judge Wingate. Grassley accused the judge of “using artificial intelligence… with the substantive errors arising from AI‑generated hallucinations,” and warned that the incident illustrates the dangers of unchecked technology in the judiciary.

Beyond the political theater, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court’s reliance on fabricated case law violated the Supreme Court’s procedural standards set out in Moody v. Net Choice. The appellate panel vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for reassignment to a different judge, emphasizing that trial judges must follow a clear analytical algorithm when evaluating facial constitutional challenges.

Why the Error Matters

Legal scholars say the incident underscores two intersecting threats: the erosion of rigorous judicial analysis and the rise of AI tools that can produce convincing yet false legal citations. The Fifth Circuit’s decision reinforces that even well‑intentioned use of technology cannot replace the disciplined reasoning required of Article III judges.

Critics of the anti‑DEI law see the appellate ruling as a victory for free‑speech protections, while supporters argue that the procedural misstep should not distract from the law’s substantive purpose of shielding students from “divisive” curricula. The case now hinges on whether the new judge will apply the Supreme Court’s “Moody” framework correctly, potentially setting a precedent for how courts handle AI‑generated drafts in the future.

Broader Implications for Education Policy

Mississippi’s House Bill 1193 is part of a growing wave of state legislation aimed at limiting DEI initiatives in public institutions. Similar measures have been introduced in Texas, Florida and several other states, reflecting a national debate over the role of diversity training and inclusive curricula in schools.

The Fifth Circuit’s intervention sends a clear message that procedural integrity cannot be sacrificed for ideological goals. As states continue to pursue restrictive policies, courts will increasingly become the battleground where constitutional principles are tested against partisan legislation.

For educators, parents, and policymakers, the saga serves as a reminder that the tools used to draft legal orders must be scrutinized as closely as the policies they enforce. The integrity of the judicial process remains a cornerstone of the rule of law, especially when the stakes involve the educational environment of the next generation.

The full episode of The Andrew Branca Show is available on OBBM Network TV.