AI invented people and court documents: the US is deciding whether to remove a judge from the case

A scandal erupted in the United States over the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of a court decision. The document revealed fictional participants in the case, non-existent materials and false legal references. Now a federal appeals court is deciding whether Judge Henry T. Wingate can continue to consider the case.

What happened

The errors were discovered in a temporary injunction that Wingate issued in July 2025. The document concerned the Mississippi state law HB 1193, which restricts diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as well as certain types of race and gender education in public schools and universities.

The judge later announced that one of his assistants used the artificial intelligence platform Perplexity when preparing the document. At the same time, an early version of the decision was in the court registry before the standard internal review was completed.

The document contained references to people who were not involved in the proceedings at all, references to non-existent case materials, incorrect quotes from Mississippi law, and erroneous legal references.

A few days later, the court replaced the document and removed the original version from the public record, leaving a copy in the proceedings.

Judge admits lack of control

Wingate explained that his assistant used Perplexity as the main tool for preparing the draft and summarizing publicly available information.

The judge himself attributed the errors to lack of human control and admitted that such a draft should not have been included in the court record. After the incident, he changed the procedure for checking documents in his office.

They want to transfer the case to another judge

Mississippi representatives now believe that the situation with the decision prepared with the help of AI calls into question Wingate’s continued participation in the case.

The state is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to lift the injunction and remand the case to another federal judge. The plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, insist that the misinformation did not affect the decision to block the law.

The appeals court must separately determine whether there are grounds to remand the case to another judge. Such a move would not mean Wingate is removed from the federal judiciary or automatically subject to disciplinary action.