2026年10月23日 美国东部时间下午2点 / 福克斯新闻
法官杰里·史密斯在裁决中指出，该地区法院”无视并操纵现行法律”，以满足其”政策议程”
作者：福克斯新闻的伊莱恩·马伦
新闻提示：您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章
一名联邦法官因第五巡回上诉法院斥责其对密西西比州反DEI法律案件的处理是”一次搞砸的工作”，被调离该案件；上诉法院指出，法官的裁决充斥着事实错误、一处明显由AI虚构的案例引用，以及对最高法院判例的错误适用。
在由里根总统任命的法官杰里·史密斯撰写的裁决意见中，上诉法院撤销了同样由里根任命的法官亨利·温盖特针对该法律发布的初步禁令，并下令将案件重新分配给另一名法官——这是一种”非同寻常且极少启用的举措”。
史密斯写道：”这位地区法官滥用了他依据第三条获得的司法权力，基于虚假和编造的内容发布了草率的裁决。”他补充道：”地区法院——或者说，如果要善意揣测的话，可能是其AI辅助工具——无视并操纵现行法律，显然是为了迎合某一政策议程。”
温盖特对案件的处理引发争议，始于他在7月发布的临时限制令中出现的严重错误。当时，一组教师、家长和学生提起诉讼，指控密西西比州一项限制公立学校和大学中DEI相关做法的州法律违反第一和第十四修正案。
【特朗普政府提议取消采用基于种族项目的学校的免税资格】
2024年3月，路易斯维尔大学的学生举行集会，旨在保护校园内的多样性、公平性与包容性（DEI）。（克莱尔·格兰特/《信使日报》/美国今日媒体网络/美国今日媒体网络 via Imagn Images）
在密西西比州官员指出重大事实错误两天后，温盖特替换了该临时限制令。这些错误包括11名从未参与案件的个人和机构被列为原告、两名官员被错误列为被告，以及毫无根据的说法称三所学校已因该法律取消了DEI项目。
第五巡回上诉法院指出，最初的临时限制令还引用了四处出现在案件记录之外、”甚至可能不存在”的人员的宣誓声明；它还将法案中未出现的表述归于该法律，包括”种族或性别刻板印象””种族或性别替罪羊””批判性种族理论”及”制度性偏见”。
史密斯写道：”我们很感激——甚至可以说很幸运——被告方在7月28日的动议ECF 58-1中附上了最初的临时限制令作为证据，因为温盖特法官并未将其公开。”
人们通过笔记本电脑和计算机与AI互动，利用快速前沿技术创作、编写代码、训练AI或分析大数据。（盖蒂图片社/瓦南·约辛库姆）
即使经过修正的临时限制令仍存在错误，其中包括对一个不存在案例的引用，第五巡回上诉法院称这是”明显的AI虚构结果”。温盖特在讨论临时限制令与初步禁令之间的关系时引用了这个虚构案例，这让史密斯得出结论：这个编造的引用”也可能是该初步禁令草率推理的一部分”。
在AI使用指控公开浮出水面后，温盖特后来承认，一名法律助理曾使用人工智能协助起草临时限制令。温盖特称，这些错误属于”文书性质”，并未影响法院的”核心法律推理或对案件实质的最终判决”。
第五巡回上诉法院对这一解释提出质疑，反问”这么多错误事实怎么可能至少没有‘影响’‘核心法律推理’或支持案件实质的判决”。
第五巡回上诉法院认定温盖特的法律推理存在重大缺陷，指控这位法官在言论自由挑战问题上曲解了最高法院的裁决、超出了法院禁令的限度，并在处理政府和公职人员的言论法律保护时出现失误。
上诉法院专家组重点关注了最高法院2024年在《穆迪诉网络选择》一案中的裁决，该裁决为法院受理要求完全废除某一法律的第一修正案挑战设定了两步检验标准。
【司法部就《纽约时报》采访一事，将联邦法官从移民案件中调离】
美国最高法院为特朗普政府继续实施第三国移民遣返政策扫清了道路，届时大法官们将对针对该政策的法律挑战进行审议。（盖蒂图片社）
根据穆迪案的分析，法院只有在某一法律的违宪适用大幅超过合宪适用时，才能基于第一修正案完全废除该法律。上诉法院反对温盖特将穆迪案框架描述为”据称”必须遵循的要求。
“温盖特法官两次将穆迪案框架称为‘据称’必须遵循的，这让人们怀疑他是否真心努力遵循法律，”史密斯写道。
“地区法院对最高法院具有约束力先例的漠视，是导致初步禁令失效的又一原因，”史密斯继续写道。
上诉法院还指责温盖特在批准初步救济时的推理，称其裁决认为法院”在面对一个充满不确定性且可能产生严重后果的领域时应暂缓处理”。
“这完全颠覆了禁令救济的全部规则，”史密斯写道。
“初步禁令不能仅因为当事人在案件实质上可能胜诉就成立，”史密斯补充道。
上诉法院还指控温盖特误读了最高法院2025年《特朗普诉Casa》一案的裁决；该裁决限制法官发布超出保护诉讼当事人所需范围的命令。
温盖特引用《Casa》一案得出结论，称类似他所处理的这种禁令”应采取全有或全无的形式”。
【注册获取政治新闻通讯】
“这几乎完全违背了《Casa》的含义，”史密斯写道。”所引用的部分是最高法院在提醒法官注意救济范围过宽的问题，并敦促法官将救济调整到绝对必要的程度，不得超出这一范围。”
【点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用】
第五巡回上诉法院将案件发回密西西比州南区法院，由一名新法官对其进行审理。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯数字新闻和福克斯商业的撰稿人，负责报道美国国家政治。
Federal judge kicked off ‘botch job’ anti-DEI case after stunning appeals court rebuke
October 23, 2026 2:00pm EDT / Fox News
Judge Jerry Smith wrote the district court ‘ignored and manipulated governing law’ to satisfy a ‘policy agenda’
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge was removed from a challenge to Mississippi’s anti-DEI law after the Fifth Circuit blasted his handling of the case as a “botch job,” pointing to orders riddled with factual errors, an apparent AI-hallucinated case citation and faulty applications of Supreme Court precedent.
In an opinion penned by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, the appeals court vacated Reagan-appointed Judge Henry Wingate’s preliminary injunction blocking the law and ordered the case reassigned to a different judge — an “extraordinary” and “rarely invoked” move.
“This district judge carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications,” Smith wrote, adding that “the district court—or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent—ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.”
The controversy surrounding Wingate’s handling of the case began with serious errors in a temporary restraining order he issued in July after a group of teachers, parents and students sued, arguing that a Mississippi state law restricting DEI-related practices in public schools and universities violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES STRIPPING TAX-EXEMPT STATUS FROM SCHOOLS USING RACE-BASED PROGRAMS
University of Louisville students holding a rally to protect diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on their campus in March 2024.(Clare Grant/Courier Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)
Wingate replaced the order just two days later after Mississippi officials flagged major factual errors, including 11 individuals and organizations identified as plaintiffs who were never a part of the case, two officials incorrectly named as defendants and unsupported claims that three schools had already canceled DEI programs because of the law.
The original TRO also cited purported declarations from four people who did not appear anywhere in the record and “may not even exist,” according to the Fifth Circuit. It also attributed language to the bill that does not appear in the law, including references to “race or sex stereotyping,” “race or sex scapegoating,” “critical race theory” and “institutional bias.”
“We are grateful—and, indeed, lucky—that the defendants provided a copy of the original TRO as an exhibit in their July 28 motion, ECF 58-1, given that Judge Wingate kept it from public view,” Smith wrote.
Humans are using laptops and computers to interact with AI, helping them create, code, train AI, or analyze big data with fast, cutting-edge technology.(Getty Images/Wanan Yossingkum)
Even the corrected TRO contained errors, including a citation to a nonexistent case that the Fifth Circuit called “an apparent AI hallucination.” Wingate cited the purported case while discussing the relationship between temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, leading Smith to conclude that the fabricated citation was “arguably part of the shoddy reasoning of the preliminary injunction, too.”
Wingate later acknowledged that a law clerk had used artificial intelligence to assist in drafting the TRO, following accusations of AI use surfacing publicly. Wingate said the errors were “clerical” and did not affect the court’s “core legal reasoning or the ultimate judgment on the merits.”
The Fifth Circuit pushed back on that explanation, questioning “how so many mistaken facts could not at least marginally ‘affect’ ‘core legal reasoning’ or support for the judgment on the merits.”
The Fifth Circuit found major flaws in Wingate’s legal reasoning, accusing the judge of misinterpreting Supreme Court rulings on free speech challenges, exceeding the limits of court injunctions and mishandling legal protections for government and public-employee speech.
The panel zeroed in on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, which sets a two-step test for courts considering First Amendment challenges seeking to strike down a law entirely.
DOJ MOVES TO BOOT FEDERAL JUDGES FROM IMMIGRATION CASES OVER NYT INTERVIEW
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue third-country deportations while the justices consider a legal challenge to the policy.(Getty Images)
Under the Moody analysis, a court can strike down an entire law on First Amendment grounds only if its unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh its constitutional ones. The appeals court took issue with Wingate describing the Moody framework as “supposedly” required.
“That Judge Wingate twice refers to the Moody framework as ‘supposedly’ required calls into question whether he even tried in good faith to follow the law,” Smith wrote.
“The district court’s laxity in observing the binding authority of the Supreme Court is yet another reason to doom the preliminary injunction,” Smith continued.
The appeals court also faulted Wingate for his reasoning in granting preliminary relief, pointing to his ruling that the court “should pause when faced with an unsettled area with such dire possible consequences.”
“That gets the entire law of injunctive relief completely backwards,” Smith wrote.
“A preliminary injunction cannot stand just because there is a possibility of success on the merits,” Smith continued.
The appeals court also accused Wingate of misreading the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which limits judges from issuing orders that go beyond what is needed to protect the people who filed the lawsuit.
Wingate cited CASA in concluding that injunctions like the one before him “should be all-or-nothing renditions.”
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
“That is almost exactly the opposite of what CASA says,” Smith wrote. “The quoted portion was the Supreme Court’s cautioning against overbroad relief and urging judges to tailor relief to what is absolutely necessary and nothing more.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the Southern District of Mississippi, where a new judge will consider it.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
发表回复