Judiciary
After second federal judge withdraws error-riddled ruling, litigants seek explanation
U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate of the Southern District of Mississippi in August 2022. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has asked Wingate to explain “significant substantive errors” in a withdrawn opinion and to put the ruling back on the docket. (Photo by Rogelio V. Solis/The Associated Press)
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has asked a federal judge to explain “significant substantive errors” in a withdrawn opinion and to put the ruling back on the docket.
U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate of the Southern District of Mississippi withdrew the July 20 opinion on July 23, a day after the attorney general’s office pointed out the errors in a July 22 motion to clarify. Now, the office said in a July 28 motion the old and new opinions should be posted for “accuracy and completeness of the court docket.”
Wingate’s withdrawn opinion referenced allegations and parties not in the lawsuit, nonexistent declarations by four people, and language not found in the state law being challenged, according to the motions.
Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law360 have coverage.
Wingate withdrew the opinion on the same day that District Judge Julien Xavier Neals of the District of New Jersey withdrew an opinion that misstated case outcomes and contained fake quotes from opinions. The New Jersey case is not related to the Mississippi litigation.
The errors were found in Wingate’s temporary restraining order blocking a Mississippi law that prohibits programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion or that endorse concepts such as gender identity and gender theory.
In the withdrawn opinion, Wingate cited “specific institutional impacts” from the withdrawal of DEI offices and initiatives at three state universities, even though there are no allegations to that effect in the complaint, according to the July 22 motion.
The withdrawn TRO also stated that faculty members at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi, “have been instructed not to discuss gender theory or historical interpretations involving systemic racism,” although evidence in the record and suit allegations do not support that claim.
Wingate substituted a new opinion on July 23, according to the attorney general’s office. It was filed and stamped July 20 but dated and signed July 22.
“In the present action,” the attorney general’s office said in the July 28 motion, “numerous press articles and reports have cited the erroneous portions of the original TRO order, creating widespread and unnecessary confusion that cannot easily be rectified after the fact with the original TRO order erased from the docket.”
“Moreover,” the motion said, “defendants respectfully submit that given the nature of the multiple substantive errors included in the original TRO order—errors that cannot be dismissed as typographical or scrivener’s errors—the parties and the public are due an explanation from the court as to how these errors occurred.”
When the ABA Journal called Wingate’s chambers for comment, a person who answered the phone said questions should be emailed. There was no immediate response to the Journal’s email.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
