A federal judge’s opinion has unraveled under scrutiny, exposing sloppy errors or worse.
U.S. District Court Judge Julien Neals, appointed by then-President Barack Obama in 2015 and renominated by Joe Biden in 2021, issued a legal opinion on June 30 that attorney Andrew Lichtman swiftly dismantled for its inaccuracies, as the Daily Caller reports. Lichtman’s letter to Neals pointed out six glaring mistakes, including misstated case outcomes and fabricated quotes. This isn’t just a clerical hiccup -- it’s a judicial embarrassment that raises questions about competence.
Neals’ opinion falsely claimed that three motions to dismiss were denied when they were actually granted. Lichtman also flagged a quote, “The absence of insider trading is not dispositive,” attributed to a case that doesn’t contain it. Such errors suggest either gross negligence or reliance on untrustworthy tools.
After Lichtman’s letter, Neals yanked the opinion from the record. A court notice blandly stated, “That opinion and order were entered in error,” promising a corrected version later. This retreat doesn’t erase the damage -- it amplifies skepticism about judicial rigor.
Bloomberg News and The Volokh Conspiracy speculated that artificial intelligence might have birthed these errors. AI-generated “hallucinations” -- fake citations or quotes -- are a growing concern in legal work. Relying on tech over human diligence is a risky shortcut, especially in a courtroom.
Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman, writing for The Volokh Conspiracy, pinned the blame on a law clerk, not Neals himself. “I suspect there are many judges throughout the country that have issued opinions with hallucinations,” Blackman wrote. His theory spares the judge but indicts the system for lax oversight.
Blackman’s defense of Neals, 60, hinges on the judge’s likely detachment from the nitty-gritty of opinion drafting. “Still, one might ask how closely Judge Neals, and other judges, review the work of their law clerks,” he noted. It’s a polite way of saying judges might be rubber-stamping sloppy work.
Lichtman’s letter also revealed two quotes attributed to defendants that they never made. Misquoting parties in a legal opinion isn’t just careless -- it’s a distortion of justice. This kind of error fuels distrust in a system already under fire for bias.
Blackman urged litigators to scour adverse rulings for similar “hallucinations,” suggesting they’re “excellent grounds for reversal on appeal.” His call to action is a wake-up call for conservatives wary of activist judges. Vigilance, not complacency, is the answer to judicial overreach.
Neals’ renomination by Biden in 2021 came alongside a slate of candidates touted for their diversity. Biden’s White House boasted of “the broad diversity of background, experience, and perspective,” including three African American women for Circuit Court vacancies. Diversity’s fine, but competence must trump optics.
The same statement celebrated the first Muslim American federal judge and the first AAPI woman on D.C.’s District Court. “Representation does matter,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declared, identifying as a Black, gay, immigrant woman. Yet, when errors like Neals’ surface, the focus on identity over merit invites skepticism.
Biden also highlighted his all-women senior White House communications team, a move Jean-Pierre tied to his belief that “the federal bench should reflect the full diversity of the American people.” Noble words, but they ring hollow when a judge’s opinion collapses under basic fact-checking. Results, not rhetoric, define credibility.
Blackman’s suggestion that “most judges do not check citations” is a damning indictment of judicial laziness. If judges can’t be bothered to verify their rulings, why should the public trust their authority? This isn’t just about Neals -- it’s a systemic red flag.
The withdrawn opinion, as Bloomberg reported, was a rare admission of failure. Yet, the court’s vague “entered in error” excuse dodges accountability. Transparency, not cover-ups, is what conservatives demand from a judiciary too often swayed by progressive agendas.
Blackman’s final jab -- “An enterprising sleuth could do a close analysis of all opinions from Judge Neals” -- hints at deeper rot. If one opinion is this flawed, what about others? Conservatives should push for audits to ensure judges aren’t coasting on unearned trust.
