A federal appeals court has vacated a preliminary injunction against Mississippi’s House Bill 1193 and sent the challenge back for reassignment to a different district judge, saying the lower court both applied the wrong First Amendment framework and relied on a draft containing extensive errors generated through artificial intelligence.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not finally decide whether the statute is constitutional. Its October 22 ruling requires a new judge to examine the challengers’ facial claims under the Supreme Court’s method in Moody v NetChoice: identify the law’s full range of applications, separate constitutional from unconstitutional ones and decide whether the latter substantially outweigh the former.
Mississippi enacted HB 1193 to restrict certain diversity, equity and inclusion practices at public schools and universities. The plaintiffs, including educators and advocacy organisations, obtained a preliminary injunction. The appellate panel said that analysis was incomplete, including because the district court treated student groups and activities as covered even though the statute expressly excludes them.
The reassignment order arose from a separate and unusually serious problem. The district judge disclosed that a law clerk had used generative AI while preparing a temporary restraining order. According to the Fifth Circuit, the resulting text introduced parties who were not in the case, factual assertions unsupported by the record, quotations that did not appear in cited material and at least one nonexistent decision. The judge later withdrew the order and entered an injunction after further proceedings, but the panel concluded that the episode and subsequent handling created an appearance problem requiring a fresh judicial officer on remand.
The panel stressed that its criticism concerned the integrity of judicial work, not a categorical ban on technology. Courts may use tools, it said in substance, but they remain responsible for checking every factual and legal proposition that enters an order. The preliminary injunction is no longer in force; the constitutional challenge continues before a new judge.
Read the official Fifth Circuit opinion.
