A federal judge in Mississippi, U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate, has finally admitted that his staff utilized artificial intelligence to draft a court order that was subsequently found to be flawed. This admission follows months of public speculation and a direct inquiry from U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.

In a letter sent on Tuesday to the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Judge Wingate acknowledged that his law clerk employed an AI program, specifically Perplexity, to compose an order. This order aimed to pause the enforcement of a Mississippi state law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in public schools. The initial order, issued on July 20, was riddled with factual inaccuracies, including misidentifying parties, misquoting state law, and referencing a nonexistent case. These errors prompted concerns from the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office.

Following the identification of these mistakes, Judge Wingate replaced the erroneous order with a corrected version and removed the flawed document from the public docket, despite a request from the Attorney General’s Office to restore it for transparency. He initially dismissed the errors as mere “clerical” mistakes. However, Senator Grassley intervened months later with a letter, pressing Judge Wingate to address both the errors and the suspected use of AI.

Judge Wingate’s acknowledgment specified that the AI program, Perplexity, was used to analyze publicly available information from the docket to craft the order, emphasizing that no privileged or sealed information was involved. He conceded that the order was a draft opinion that had not undergone proper review before its addition to the docket. The judge maintains his decision not to restore the original, flawed order to the docket, citing an effort to prevent confusion.

To prevent recurrence, Judge Wingate outlined new corrective measures within his chambers. These include a requirement for all draft opinions, orders, and memos to undergo a second, independent review. Additionally, all cited cases must now be printed and attached to the final draft. Judge Wingate expressed his commitment to upholding public trust, stating, “Given that I hold myself and my staff to the highest standards of conduct, I do not expect that a mistake like this one will occur in the future.”

Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, lauded Judge Wingate, a Reagan-appointed judge, for his candid admission. Grassley underscored the judiciary’s obligation to ensure that the use of generative AI does not infringe upon litigants’ rights or obstruct fair treatment under the law, advocating for the development of more definitive and permanent AI policies and guidelines within the judicial branch.

The issue of AI usage in the federal judiciary represents largely uncharted territory, despite its growing adoption in the legal profession for tasks such as researching court cases and drafting legal briefs. These AI systems, however, are not infallible and can “hallucinate,” producing false information. While attorneys in Mississippi have faced penalties for AI misuse due to their ethical responsibility for truthfulness, there has been less accountability when judges or their staff are involved.

In response to these emerging challenges, Robert Conrad Jr., the director of the federal Administrative Office of the Courts, informed Senator Grassley that an AI task force, comprising judges and technology experts, has been established to recommend new policies for AI usage within the federal court system. This task force has already issued interim guidance, advising attorneys to independently verify all AI-generated content and to consider disclosing its use in document preparation.