Wingate responds
Uploaded by
aswarren77Wingate responds
Uploaded by
aswarren77UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
501 EAST COURT STREET
SUITE 6.750
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39201
HONORABLE HENRY T. WINGATE TELEPHONE: 601-608-4100
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WINGATE_CHAMBERS@MSSD.USCOURTS.GOV
October 21, 2025
Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Washington, DC 20544
Dear Judge Conrad:
By letter dated October 6, 2025, United States Senator Charles E. Grassley, in his
capacity as Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, wrote to me regarding the impact, if any,
of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) in preparing the Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) issued in Jackson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al., Case No. 3:25-
cv-00417, and the related actions taken by the Court. I appreciate the Senate Judiciary
Committee's commitment to safeguarding litigants’ rights and ensuring the fidelity of judicial
proceedings. In the interest of aiding the Committee’s oversight duties, I provide you with the
following answers to the questions raised by Senator Grassley for you to transmit to him.
In the case of the Court’s Order issued July 20, 2025, a law clerk utilized a generative
artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) tool known as Perplexity strictly as a foundational drafting
assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket. The law clerk who used
GenAI in this case did not input any sealed, privileged, confidential, or otherwise non-public
case information.
The standard practice in my chambers is for every draft opinion to undergo several
levels of review before becoming final and being docketed, including the use of cite checking
tools. 1 In this case, however, the opinion that was docketed on July 20, 2025, was an early
draft that had not gone through the standard review process. It was a draft that should have
never been docketed. This was a mistake. I have taken steps in my chambers to ensure this
mistake will not happen again, as described below. The root cause of the errors identified in
Defendant’s unopposed motion to clarify/correct was a lapse in human oversight, specifically
the posting of a draft opinion instead of a final one and the failure to put the draft opinion
through the final review process.
1
The vendor that supplies the cite checking tool incorporates AI technology into that feature, but my law clerks
review and verify the work of the cite checking tool.
Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
Page 2
After the Defendants filed their unopposed motion to clarify, the law clerk and Clerk
of Court maintained transparency and the chronology of the docket in the case by noting that
the original July 20, 2025, Order had been removed and was replaced on July 23, 2025. See
21-cv-417-HTW-LGI at ECF No. 51. While there are no applicable policies regarding marking
a corrected or amended opinion with a notation reflecting that the decision was substantively
altered, the law clerk ensured the docket reflected an accurate history and chronology of the
case by entering a Text Order on July 23, 2025, granting the defendant’s unopposed motion to
clarify and by updating the July 20, 2025, docket entry to reflect the Order had been replaced.
I thought that it would be confusing to leave a flawed opinion on the record because of the
errors and inaccuracies that existed in the Order. Because it was not the final opinion, I did not
want parties, including pro se litigants, to believe this draft order should be cited in future
cases. For these reasons, I removed the inaccurate Order from public view and will not re-
docket it. However, I have verified that the clerk’s office will maintain a copy of the errant
Order in accordance with applicable record retention requirements. See Records Disposition
Schedule. The errant Order is also attached as an exhibit to a motion. See 21-cv-417-HTW-
LGI at ECF No. 58. The term “clerical,” which was used in the August 1, 2025, Order, was
intended to signify that the mistakes were due to a failure to confirm the accuracy of certain
information rather than errors in core legal reasoning or the ultimate judgment on the merits.
Consistent with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, I have taken appropriate
action to address the law clerk’s conduct that resulted in the mistake. Additionally, I
immediately implemented corrective measures in my chambers, including a plan whereby all
draft opinions, orders, and memorandum decisions undergo a mandatory, independent review
by a second law clerk before submission to me. All cited cases are printed from Westlaw and
attached to a final draft.
I cannot speak to litigants’ use of GenAI tools in drafting their filings and do not have
any rules regarding this in my chambers. The Southern District of Mississippi has not yet
issued a specific local rule regarding the use of GenAI by litigants. It is my job to ensure the
veracity of all cases cited and relied upon in my opinions and orders.
I manage a very busy docket and strive to maintain the public’s trust by administering
justice in a fair and transparent manner. 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. I trust
that these responses will provide the Committee with the necessary information to conclude
its inquiry into this matter.
Respectfully,
/s/Henry T. Wingate
United States District Judge