A federal judge is in hot water for a legal opinion so riddled with errors it might as well have been drafted by a chatbot with a grudge.
The Daily Caller reported that on June 30, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Julien Neals issued an opinion that quickly drew sharp criticism for inaccuracies, only to withdraw it after a pointed letter from an attorney exposed the mess.
Judge Neals, first nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2015 and later renominated by Joe Biden in 2021, delivered a ruling in a civil suit that didn’t quite pass the smell test. Attorney Andrew Lichtman, representing the defendants, wasn’t about to let it slide.
Lichtman’s letter to the court was a polite but piercing takedown, calling out six specific errors in Neals’ work. He flagged three cases where the outcomes were flat-out wrong—motions to dismiss reported as granted when they were denied. Talk about a swing and a miss on basic facts.
Then there’s the issue of phantom quotes, with Lichtman noting “numerous instances” where words were attributed to decisions that never contained them.
One glaring example? Neals cited a case with the line “The absence of insider trading is not dispositive,” a quote nowhere to be found in the referenced document.
Lichtman didn’t stop there—he also claimed the opinion pinned two quotes on defendants they never uttered. If you’re keeping score, that’s a trifecta of sloppy: wrong outcomes, fake quotes, and misattributed statements. This isn’t just a typo; it’s a travesty of judicial precision.
After Lichtman’s letter hit the judge’s desk, Neals pulled the opinion faster than a politician dodging a tough question. Bloomberg News reported the withdrawal, and a court notice admitted the opinion and order were “entered in error.” Well, no kidding.
The court’s notice promised that “a subsequent opinion and order will follow,” but the damage was already done. One has to wonder how such a blunder made it to the docket in the first place. Was this a case of too much trust in underlings or something more troubling?
Speculation is swirling, with outlets like Bloomberg and The Volokh Conspiracy blog suggesting artificial intelligence might be the culprit behind these so-called “hallucinations.”
Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman mused, “I suspect there are many judges throughout the country that have issued opinions with hallucinations.” If AI is indeed to blame, it’s a stark reminder that tech can’t replace human accountability.
Blackman didn’t hold back, questioning how closely judges like Neals review their clerks’ work, asking, “Do the judges actually check the citations to see if they are hallucinated?” It’s a fair point—shouldn’t a federal judge be the final gatekeeper of accuracy? Relying on unchecked tech or unverified drafts is a risky game in a courtroom.
The professor even suggested that “savvy litigators” should start scouring adverse rulings for signs of such errors, calling it “excellent grounds for reversal on appeal.” That’s a wake-up call for the judiciary to tighten up. If trust in legal opinions erodes, what’s left of the system?
Blackman went further, proposing an “enterprising sleuth” could dig into Neals’ past rulings—or any judge’s—for a pattern of misconduct. While that sounds like a legal treasure hunt, it underscores a deeper concern: can the public rely on the bench to wield judicial power responsibly?
Stepping back, Neals’ path to the bench came with fanfare from the Biden administration, which touted the diversity of its nominees in 2021.
A White House statement celebrated “the broad diversity of background, experience, and perspective that makes our nation strong.” While representation matters, competence must remain the cornerstone of any appointment.
The administration’s emphasis on diversity—highlighting “three African American women chosen for Circuit Court vacancies” and other firsts—reflects a progressive push that some conservatives view with skepticism.
Judicial roles aren’t about checking boxes; they’re about upholding the law without error or bias. Neals’ recent stumble only fuels concerns that priorities may be misplaced.