A federal judge withdrew a legal opinion after an attorney flagged multiple false citations and fake quotes—some of which appear to have been AI-generated. The incident raises serious concerns about judicial oversight and accountability in the federal bench.
Key Facts:
- U.S. District Judge Julien Neals issued a legal opinion on June 30, 2025, that was later found to contain six major factual and citation errors.
- Attorney Andrew Lichtman, who argued before Neals, submitted a letter exposing multiple false quotes and reversed case outcomes.
- Judge Neals’ opinion cited quotes that do not exist in referenced cases and attributed statements to parties who never made them.
- The court formally withdrew the opinion, stating it was “entered in error,” and promised a revised version to follow.
- Legal scholars and Bloomberg suggest improper use of artificial intelligence may be the cause.
The Rest of The Story:
Judge Julien Neals, a federal district judge, is now under scrutiny after issuing an opinion riddled with errors that went beyond simple typos.
Attorney Andrew Lichtman, who represented defendants in the civil case, flagged the discrepancies in a letter to the court.
Among the most serious claims: at least three court decisions were cited with incorrect outcomes, and several quotes attributed to legal opinions could not be found.
For instance, Neals’ opinion cited a line from City of Warwick Retirement System v. Catalent, Inc.—“The absence of insider trading is not dispositive.”
A basic search of the document reveals that phrase appears nowhere in the cited decision.
Even more troubling, Neals allegedly credited quotes to defendants that were never actually alleged in the record.
After receiving Lichtman’s letter, the court quickly retracted the opinion and posted a notice stating it had been “entered in error.”
Legal scholars quickly weighed in.
Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman wrote, “I suspect there are many judges throughout the country that have issued opinions with hallucinations,” suggesting this may be part of a broader issue with AI-generated content being inserted into legal proceedings without verification.
Commentary:
This incident is not just about one faulty ruling. It’s about a breakdown in the trust and integrity that underpins the federal judiciary.
When a judge puts his name on a legal opinion, it must be assumed that every word and every citation has been reviewed. That clearly didn’t happen here.
Judge Neals may not have personally fabricated the quotes, but he allowed a document riddled with falsehoods to be published under his authority.
That alone is a dereliction of duty. Whether it was a law clerk or an AI tool at fault, the responsibility falls squarely on Neals’ shoulders.
It’s bad enough that the opinion misrepresented multiple legal precedents. But falsely attributing quotes to the parties in the case?
That’s inexcusable and borders on misconduct.
Imagine the consequences if these errors weren’t caught—real damage to reputations, lives, and the rule of law.
This is the product of a federal bench increasingly stocked with appointees chosen for their demographic attributes rather than their professional record.
Neals was nominated not once but twice—first by Obama and again by Biden. The latter nomination came with fanfare about diversity quotas, not constitutional fidelity.
Yes, representation matters. But what good is diversity on the bench if the opinions coming out are riddled with fantasy and fraud?
If a judge can’t double-check citations, he has no business wielding the power of the gavel.
The Senate, particularly Republicans, shares the blame for confirming judges more concerned with social optics than legal rigor.
This isn’t just a Biden problem—it’s a broken system problem.
Ultimately, Neals should resign. He failed in his most basic duty: ensuring that legal decisions are grounded in fact and law.
There must be consequences, or this type of behavior will become the norm.
The Bottom Line:
A federal judge published an opinion riddled with fabricated quotes and false case references, then quietly retracted it after being called out.
Whether AI, incompetence, or negligence was to blame, the buck stops with Judge Neals.
His failure reflects a broader breakdown in judicial standards, fueled by misguided political appointments and lack of accountability.
Read Next
– Trump and EU Seal Surprise Deal After Last-Minute Talks
– Trump Slams Kamala, Celebs Over Alleged Pay-For-Play Endorsements, ‘They Should All Be Prosecuted’
– New Poll Shows Democrat Favorability Hits 35 Year Low, GOP Gains on Key Issues