Attorneys were puzzled by a ruling from a federal judge in Mississippi, which contained “undeniable factual inaccuracies.” This raised concerns about how these mistakes occurred and whether artificial intelligence (AI) was involved.

U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate’s order on July 20 approved a temporary restraining order (TRO) as requested by various education advocacy groups, including the Mississippi Association of Educators. The order prevented the state government from implementing sections of a bill designed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

However, the order, which has since been amended, reportedly included several errors. The defendants highlighted these mistakes in an unopposed motion to clarify submitted on Monday.

“The TRO Order mentions incorrect plaintiffs and defendants; cites allegations not present in the current complaint and/or unsupported by the case record; quotes certain terms not found in [the state bill’s] language; and references declarations from four individuals whose statements are absent from the case record,” the motion reads.

The attorneys from the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office stated they are not looking to have the TRO revoked. Instead, they request “that the Court take necessary measures to clarify or amend the following apparent and undeniable factual inaccuracies.”

To begin with, 11 of the 12 plaintiffs that the judge named in his original TRO have not “ever been a named plaintiff in this case.” Furthermore, regarding two state officials Wingate’s original order named as defendants: “neither official is or has ever been a named defendant in this case.”

The original TRO additionally cited allegations purportedly made by the plaintiffs in their amended complaint filed on June 23, such as assertions that specific public universities like Jackson State University “allegedly already have terminated DEI initiatives and cancelled scheduled programming.”

However, no such mentions exist.

The judge’s order also quotes phrases from the DEI law in question that do not exist – and refers to declarations made by people as part of the original complaint. But the declarations that the judge cites in his original TRO do not match the names he attaches to them.

“Our attorneys have never seen anything like this,” an official with the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office told Mississippi Today.

While some lawyers have reportedly questioned whether AI was used in the development of the filing, it doesn’t appear that any evidence has been found of this, and Wingate is said to have avoided questions about the order and whether AI played a part.

But as the technology of AI rapidly evolves and stakes its place in various industries, it, too, has been implemented by lawyers in the legal filing process – often with disastrous results. In one case in Colorado, a judge scolded two attorneys for using a generative AI program to submit a court filing filled with errors. In another, a judge disqualified three lawyers after they included in court filings erroneous AI-generated citations.

Christina Frohock, a University of Miami professor of legal writing, did not accuse Wingate of using AI in his order but expressed her puzzlement as to how so many inaccuracies could be put forth.

“I actually don’t know how to explain the backstory here,” she told Mississippi Today. “I feel like I’m Alice in Wonderland.”

Wingate’s corrected order, reportedly filed on July 23, was backdated to say it was entered into the court docket on July 20. The original order appears on the docket only as an attachment to the defendants’ July 28 motion to clarify.

The plaintiffs and defendants are scheduled to meet on Aug. 5 to argue over whether a preliminary injunction is warranted in this case.

Wingate has served as a district judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi since 1985 after being nominated by then-President Ronald Reagan.

Law&Crime reached out to Wingate’s chambers for comment on the original TRO.