What did he know and when did he know it? Such questions about coverups are usually applied to politicians but the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is asking the same questions of U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate after he entered an order that misused AI.
The Jackson Federation of Teachers sued Attorney General Lynn Fitch and other parties to block the state's new law banning the use of DEI in public schools, agencies, and universities. Judge Wingate issued a temporary restraining order blocking implantation of the law on July 20. Unfortunately for the Court, someone used artificial intelligence to draft the order. Thus the order was filled with errors, non-existent cases, and misquotes.
Blaming his clerk, Judge Wingate pulled the order from the docket and replaced it with a corrected version. No reason was given for his action. Judge Wingate denied the Attorney General's motion to correct the docket and preserve the record.
The controversy caught the Chairman's attention.
Senator Charles Grassley pointedly asked U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate about his clerk's use of AI and whether Judge Wingate tried to cover it upon discovery. Senator Grassley questioned Judge Wingate in an October 6 letter:
Recent reports indicate that on July 20, 2025, you issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Jackson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al., which contained serious inaccuracies, including: (1) naming plaintiffs and defendants that are not parties in this case; (2) misquoting the statutory text; (3) making factually inaccurate statements that are not supported by the record; and (4) referencing declarations of four individuals who do not appear anywhere in this case. 1 After the defendants raised legitimate concerns about these substantive errors on July 22, 2025, 2 you issued a text order the very next day granting the defendants’ unopposed motion to correct the record with the note: “NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL FOLLOW.”3 These events prompted public concern that generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) may have been used in preparing the order with little or no human verification.
The good Senator asked why Judge Wingate hid the original order. The letter brings up Lewis v. Entergy, a case assigned to Judge Wingate and U.S. Magistrate Andrew Harris. The plaintiff's attorney, Jane Watson, submitted a response to a motion to stay proceedings. Unfortunately, Watson's files was rife with errors and non-existent cases as she used AI to draft the memo. The case caught Senator Grassley's attention.
Senator Grassley challenged Judge Wingate:
Against this backdrop (Lewis case), I am troubled that in Jackson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al., you declined to meaningfully address the defendants’ concerns—and their legitimate request to preserve the record and correct the factual inaccuracies in the original TRO order—and instead dismissed numerous substantive citation, quotation, and factual errors in your own decision as mere “clerical” mistakes—accompanied with the sweeping assertion that “[n]o further explanation is warranted.”
Magistrate Harris scheduled a Show Cause hearing for Ms. Watson. However, she could appeal an adverse finding to Judge Wingate. Hence Senator Grassley's concern over whether Judge Wingate can impartially preside over the case when his office is guilty of the same thing. Earlier post.
The letters directed Judge Wingate to answer several questions:
* Did Judge Wingate or anyone in his office use AI to prepare the July 20 order?
* Was any sealed or confidential information entered into an AI service?
* How was the July 20 order drafted?
* Please explain the cause of each error in the order.
* Explain why the original order was removed from public view. Why doesn't the corrected order refer to the original order?
* What actions has he taken to ensure such misuse of AI never happens again?
What will Judge Wingate do? Stay tuned.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Press Release
20 comments:
They about to FAaFO
Go after judge Wingate’s secretary since he openly accused her of this mistake
He used the old "throw the clerk under the bus." Classy! Not!
Is this the same Wingate that y'all have been fawning over?
Grassley should be focused more on his own f#cking job a little more than other people's jobs (i.e. funding the very government that he works for). Congressmen like Grassley simply get into areas they have no business in order to grandstand. If he doesn't like something, then he should work to get a law passed. Oh, I forgot, Congress is so inept that it would likely not be able to pass a basic law.
I'm more shocked that it took Wingate less than 3 years to enter an Order on a case
1:27 - Someone has to ask questions when it comes to the misuse of AI, and furthermore, Wingate not following protocol by playing switcherooney with the order he manipulated. Inquiring about this is necessary because the law wasn't followed. I'd say that's exactly one of the reasons he's where he is.
Wingate and Reeves need to go.
I'm not fawning over him. He did one broadly correct thing: Took the water system away from a clearly incompent group of people. And then proceeded to fuck around just as much to avoid a clearly needed rate increase. Unless the other funds are allowed to pay down bonds.
I may be old school, but geez....go by the law, literally go into the law library and for crying out loud, quit cheating and truly use legitimate case cites and that goes for clerks, attorneys AND judges.
Since Grassley is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, holding federal judges accountable is his job.
@ 1:27, Senator Grassley is CHAIRMAN of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. This IS his JOB and is exactly what he and his committee are supposed to be doing.
As far as funding the government, Grassley voted to fund it and keep it open.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that Senator Grassley is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he's doing his job.
Let's clear up one thing: Congress can indeed impeach a Judge for official misconduct, however, that is not the same thing as holding them accountable for questionable administrative affairs. The latter actions would be subject to the Court of Appeals or Judicial Conference. Grassley is well-known for his disdain of federal jurists - something to do with Article III status...
Isn’t that the truth
AI is the Wild West frontier. And no one had any idea AI could hallucinate. Now they do. Asking it for legal citations is like asking a crackhead to do chinese math
Federal rule of civil procedure 54(b) says that an order "may be revised at any time" prior to entry of a final judgment.
Judge Wingate had the authority under the rule to withdraw the order and enter a new one.
This is political gamesmanship by Lynn Fitch, and nothing more. She's trying to get noticed in Washington. But tattling to D.C. to embarrass a federal judge on your home court is not a good idea.
Maybe someone should have told Grassley that Judge Wingate is a Naval Veteran, and was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Judge Wingate has a lifetime appointment and should not give a sh@# what Grassley thinks.
Impeach and replace
AG Fitch should also look into banning AI in the new law.
Post a Comment