Two Federal Judges Botch Rulings With AI — The Real “Wild West” Isn’t in Texas

The AI Fiasco That Made the U.S. Judiciary Look Like a Bad “Black Mirror” Episode

Let’s start with the tragicomic headline: This summer, U.S. District Judges Julien Xavier Neals (New Jersey) and Henry T. Wingate (Mississippi) both managed to sign off on rulings that included AI-fabricated citations, phantom case law, and the kind of legal make-believe that even Johnny Cochran would side-eye. The cause? Generative AI left unchecked in the hands of interns and clerks. What could possibly go wrong, right?

Quick version if you’re busy: Two federal judges published unreviewed court opinions loaded with AI-generated “hallucinations,” then tried to quietly swap out the defective rulings. The result? A full-on credibility crisis for the judiciary and a solid entry for “How NOT to use AI at work.”

How Did This Happen? (AKA: “Oops, The Robot Did It.”)

• Judge Neals (Biden appointee): Law school intern used ChatGPT in direct violation of both judicial and university policies. Quotes and citations appeared out of nowhere, as if the spirits of Moot Court past got into the mainframe.
• Judge Wingate (Reagan appointee): Clerk, no rules on AI in the office, generated a ruling so off-base that state law was fabricated and random people were named as litigants. At first, Wingate called it a “clerical error.”

In both cases, nobody bothered to run the final opinions through basic verification—which, if you’ve ever seen “Suits,” is basically the legal equivalent of spell-check. Instead, the defective rulings went public, opening the door for Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) to come in swinging. He called it a “fiasco” that threatened judicial integrity and demanded accountability. Finally, after months of silence, the judges had to admit what happened.

What’s an AI Hallucination, and Why Should Anyone Give a Damn?

Generative AI, like that used in these fiascos, isn’t just about predicting your next Amazon purchase. These systems are designed for “fluency and speed, not factual accuracy,” as law professor Susan Tanner pointed out. An AI hallucination is when the software simply invents citations, quotes, or legal arguments—often with all the confidence of a law professor but none of the actual coursework.

118 known cases have popped up where AI-augmented attorneys or judges submitted briefs with totally invented “facts.” This isn’t the future—this is happening right now. And it’s not just “rookie” mistakes.

Why This Matters: Beyond Just Egg on the Robe

If you thought public trust in courts was already eroding, this is lighter fluid on the pyre. Fabricated legal opinions undermine the rights of litigants, skew the scales of justice, and—frankly—make our legal system look like a beta test written in crayon. When courts ask for respect, they’d better be doing the work, not delegating it to ChatGPT like a last-minute homework assignment.

Pro-tip to judges everywhere: If you’re going to outsource your thinking to AI, have the human decency to actually check the damn footnotes.

What’s Being Done? (Besides Praying This Blows Over)

• The Office of US Courts is now “reviewing” how AI can be used in judicial work.
• “Interim guidance” calls for transparency (translation: Don’t lie when the robots mess up) and warns against delegating core judicial functions to AI.
• Calls for mandatory training, real policies, and education on what AI is good for (and what it will screw up spectacularly).
• The only real fix? Human oversight, always. And a basic respect for the job at hand: Ruining lives with legalese is a full-time occupation, not a side gig for an algorithm.

Final Thought: If You Want AI to Run the Courts, Just Say You Hate Justice

Legal tech will keep growing, and there are good use cases. But nobody hires a Roomba to do brain surgery—or write an actual legal opinion. If judges, clerks, and law students can’t distinguish between fact and AI hallucination, maybe it’s time to revisit those bar exams (or turn in the gavel, period). Meanwhile, we all get front row seats as the justice system tries to clean up yet another digital mess.

Sources:

• Washington Times reporting
• ABA Journal: Federal judges retract rulings after AI-generated hallucinations
• Reuters: ChatGPT, AI lawsuits, and hallucinated legal citations
• Law.com: AI in the courtroom and ethical pitfalls
• NPR: ChatGPT and fake court citations
• ProPublica: AI-Summoned Law and Fake Cases in Court
• American Bar Association: AI and Judicial Ethics
• LegalTech News: New AI Policies in Federal Courts

Other Articles You’ll Want to Read:

• Sanctioned! When AI Lawyers Screw Up in Court
• The Rise (and Errors) of AI-Generated Science Papers
• Should We Sue the Robots? AI Liability in the Courtroom
• Why Some Law Firms Have Already Banned ChatGPT
• Congress Stumbles Toward Regulating AI