Appeals Court Allows Mississippi Ban On DEI, Removes Judge Over AI Use

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Mississippi can enforce a law prohibiting some diversity practices in schools, a federal appeals court ruled on Oct. 22 in a decision that also removed the judge overseeing the case over the use of artificial intelligence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling overturned a 2025 decision from U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate that blocked the state from enforcing a law restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices.

The law, H.B. 1193, bars schools and colleges from promoting DEI through classes and administrators from punishing students for their views on DEI.

Wingate said the law violated the constitutional rights of teachers and students, siding with plaintiffs such as the Jackson Federation of Teachers.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed.

Circuit judges said the orders blocking the law fell short because they cited only two cases to conclude the law violates First Amendment rights and brushed off a framework outlined by the Supreme Court in a decision known as Moody for future First Amendment cases.

"The district court brushes off the Moody framework as a 'supposed' formality that was satisfied merely because plaintiffs identified programs and books that, in their view, are 'arguably on the chopping block,'" Circuit Judge Jeffrey Smith wrote for the unanimous Fifth Circuit panel.

"That does not come close to satisfying the inquiry demanded by Moody. It is egregious for the district court just to assume that plaintiffs' assertions that certain materials are 'on the chopping block' must mean a constitutional violation has occurred, without any independent legal analysis whatsoever."

Under the framework, a plaintiff must show a law's unconstitutional applications "substantially outweigh" constitutional applications. The two-step process includes establishing the scope of the law and then comparing what would and would not be constitutional.

"The district court's remaining substantive reasoning is poor at best," Smith said. "Judge Wingate cites a couple of parents who were allegedly worried about the law's impact; the fact that defendants are 'loudly noncommittal,' something bordering on paradoxical that has nothing to do with legal analysis; and, on vagueness, the passing thought that 'if [H.B. 1193] lives down to the fears it has generated, has a mouthful of sharp teeth which could inflict deep bites.'"

The Mississippi Attorney General's Office and the teacher's union did not return requests for comment by publication time.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that Wingate had entered. It also remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Mississippi, but emphasized that a different judge must handle the case going forward.

It cited that Wingate's original temporary restraining order included multiple purported facts with no basis in reality, including references to plaintiffs and defendants not named in the complaint and false quotations claimed to be from the law.

Wingate later replaced the order without explanation, but the updated order also cited a legal ruling that does not exist.

"The district court - or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent - ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda," Smith said.

"Because of the extraordinarily grave errors by the district court, we vacate and remand for assignment to a different district judge."

Wingate, who did not respond to a request for comment, acknowledged in a letter to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that a law clerk used artificial intelligence to help draft the restraining order and that the initial opinion was a draft that had not "gone through the standard review process."

Wingate said he had taken steps to ensure the mistake would not happen again.