Perfect
Truly glorious irony.
The state attorney general has asked a federal judge in Mississippi to explain errors in a recent ruling, which some lawyers speculated were made by artificial intelligence.
U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate issued a temporary restraining order on July 20 that paused the enforcement of a state law that prohibits diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools. But the order was riddled with mistakes — naming plaintiffs who weren’t parties to the suit, quoting state law incorrectly and referring to cases that don’t appear to exist.
That’s usually a symptom of AI. And he’s the second federal DEI judge to be caught doing it.
On the same day in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Julien Neals withdrew a ruling he issued in a securities lawsuit after defense attorneys told, opens new tab the court that the decision made factual errors and included quotes that the lawyers said were not in the cited cases.
Neals is a Biden appointee.
Lawyers who introduce filings written by AI have faced serious penalties. Shouldn’t federal judges face serious penalties as well? Including disbarment? Can a disbarred federal judge then even sit on the bench?
AI has enabled all sorts of DEI employees to not do their jobs. But a federal judge who lets AI write his rulings is violating professional standards and should be dealt with.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Reader Interactions
In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,” please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not re-post the same comment.
