The errors went beyond a single bad citation. The original temporary restraining order listed 11 plaintiffs who were not involved in the case, wrongly named two officials as defendants, and asserted without support that three schools had already canceled DEI programs because of the law. The corrected version still cited a nonexistent case, which the Fifth Circuit called "an apparent AI hallucination." The panel also faulted the opinion's reading of Supreme Court precedent, noting that one quoted passage actually urged courts to limit relief. Wingate has blamed a law clerk, saying the clerk used the AI tool Perplexity while preparing an early draft that was mistakenly docketed. Senator Chuck Grassley had earlier questioned the orders' AI origins, and Wingate later wrote to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the draft had not gone through standard review.
The constitutional question is unresolved. Teachers, parents, and students argue the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that claim now goes to the new judge, whose approach on remand is not yet known. The vacatur also lifts the block on the law for now, so the schools and universities it covers are subject to its restrictions while the case proceeds.
For attorneys, the ruling is an unusually sharp appellate rebuke of a federal trial judge and a concrete example of AI-generated errors reaching judicial work product. Watch the reassignment and any renewed motion for injunctive relief, and expect courts to scrutinize citations and factual assertions in filings more closely. Clients in covered institutions should review compliance with HB 1193 now rather than waiting for the remand outcome.