That was the Fifth Circuit’s assessment in an October 22 decision vacating a preliminary injunction and directing that the case be reassigned to a different district judge.

The case, Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, concerns a challenge to Mississippi’s H.B. 1193, which restricts diversity, equity, and inclusion activities in public education. The majority identified fabricated factual assertions, a nonexistent legal authority, and serious deficiencies in the district court’s analysis.

According to the opinion, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate’s temporary restraining order included references to plaintiffs and defendants who were not parties, purported declarations unsupported by the record, false quotations from the statute, and claims about apparently fictitious programs.

The court described the problem in unmistakable terms:

After the errors surfaced, Judge Wingate replaced the temporary restraining order without explaining the changes. Yet even the revised order, incorporated by reference into the preliminary injunction, retained a citation to a nonexistent Fourth Circuit case, “Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk.”

The majority also criticized the underlying legal reasoning:

“The TRO and preliminary injunction order rested on impoverished legal analysis that barely paid lip-service to the precedents of the Supreme Court or this court.”

It ultimately concluded:

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

The persistence of fabricated material after an attempted correction is particularly troubling. Once a court discovers that an order contains invented facts or authorities, every material assertion deserves renewed scrutiny. Removing some errors does not establish that the remaining analysis is reliable.