The Fifth Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction blocking Mississippi's anti-DEI law, ordering the case reassigned to a new judge after finding that the original ruling was riddled with factual errors and legal misinterpretations. In an opinion written by Judge Jerry Smith, the appellate court described the lower court's handling of the case as a "botch job" and characterized the removal of the presiding judge as an "extraordinary" and "rarely invoked" measure.
The dispute began in July when a group of teachers, parents, and students challenged a Mississippi state law restricting DEI-related practices in public schools and universities, citing the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Henry Wingate issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the law but replaced it just two days later after Mississippi officials identified significant errors. The original TRO named 11 individuals and organizations as plaintiffs who were not part of the case, incorrectly listed two officials as defendants, and included unsupported claims that three schools had canceled DEI programs. Smith noted that the order cited declarations from four people who "may not exist" and attributed language to the bill that does not appear in the statute.
Smith noted that defendants provided a copy of the original TRO as an exhibit in their July 28 motion, ECF 58-1. This was significant because Judge Wingate had kept the document from public view. The corrected TRO still contained a citation to a nonexistent case, which the Fifth Circuit labeled an "apparent AI hallucination." Wingate acknowledged that a law clerk had used artificial intelligence to assist in drafting the order and characterized the errors as "clerical," arguing they did not affect the core legal reasoning. The Fifth Circuit rejected this explanation, questioning how so many mistaken facts could fail to marginally affect the judgment on the merits.
The appeals court further criticized Wingate's application of Supreme Court precedent. The panel found that Wingate misinterpreted the 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which establishes a two-step test for First Amendment challenges. Wingate referred to the Moody framework as "supposedly" required, leading Smith to question whether the judge attempted in good faith to follow binding authority. Smith argued that this disregard for Supreme Court authority further undermined the validity of the preliminary injunction.
The court also faulted Wingate for misreading the 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which limits judicial orders to what is necessary to protect plaintiffs. Wingate cited CASA to support "all-or-nothing" injunctions, while Smith noted that the Supreme Court actually cautioned against overbroad relief and urged judges to tailor orders strictly to what is absolutely necessary. "That gets the entire law of injunctive relief completely backwards," Smith wrote.
The Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the Southern District of Mississippi for reassignment.