Politics · United States · 3 hrs ago
Appeals Court Reverses Block on Mississippi DEI Law After AI Errors
A federal appeals court overturned a ruling blocking Mississippi’s anti-DEI law.
The case concerns a First Amendment challenge to the state law, which restricts public funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
A district judge had blocked the law in an order drafted with help from artificial intelligence, which the judge said his staff used.
The appeals court found that the orders included AI-generated case law and evidence not in the record.
It also reassigned the case to another judge, citing the errors and the risk that they could affect how the case was handled.
The ruling lifts the block on the law, while the First Amendment challenge remains to be resolved.
A federal appeals court overturned an order blocking Mississippi’s anti-DEI law after finding AI-related errors in the ruling.
The court said the order included hallucinated case law and cited evidence that was not in the record.
The district judge had admitted that his staff used artificial intelligence to help draft the order.
The appeals court reassigned the case, according to Law.com.
The law restricts public funding for DEI initiatives, according to Fox News.
- Who
- The Fifth Circuit appeals court and a federal district judge. The case challenges Mississippi’s anti-DEI law.
- What
- The appeals court overturned the order blocking the law and reassigned the case.
- When
- The appeals court ruling was reported on October 22, 2026.
- Where
- Mississippi; the case was heard by a federal appeals court.
- Why
- The appeals court found AI hallucinations and errors, including case law and evidence not supported by the record.
This story does not have two clearly opposing sides.
This story does not have a timeline yet.
- State
- Mississippi
- Court
- Fifth Circuit
- Ruling reported
- October 22, 2026
- Law
- Restricts public funding for DEI initiatives
3 sources
What people are saying
Given the embarrassment of the AI hallucinations and mistakes of law in the two TROs and the preliminary injunction, it would be an understandable—though obviously unjust—temptation for the judge to want to find a way to prove that, even with correct law and fact, his initial view should prevail