Published opinion, 22 October 2026 · source · PDF · 28 pages
The various state defendants appeal. At oral argument in this court, it was discovered that even the “ cor- rected” TRO— which was incorporated by reference into the preliminary injunction order — still contained hallucinated information (namely, a cita- tion to a purported Fourth Circuit case , “ Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk,” that does not exist).
1974).” ECF 51 at 2–3. That case does not even exist; it is an apparent AI hallucination.13 2. The Preliminary Injunction The order granting the preliminary injunction likewise lacks thor - oughness.14 For example, defendants explained that, because of the facial _____________________ 10 Id. at 2.
Even if the case did exist, it wouldn’t be binding in this circuit. 14 In fact, given that the preliminary injunction order “generally incorporates by reference its discussion and analysis in its TRO,” the hallucinated case discussed above is Case: 25-60496 Document: 111-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/22/2026 No. 25-60496 9 posture of this case , the regulation only “theoretically” may apply to the plaintiffs; Judge Wingate took that as proof that the “regulations . . . almost assuredly would spill over to the public.” ECF 74 at18.