Mississippi DEI ban can go into full effect after Fifth Circuit reversal

Portions of a Mississippi law banning diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools will soon take full effect following a ruling by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate panel vacated a lower court order that had blocked sections of the legislation from being enforced. The specific provisions now active prohibit public schools from requiring diversity training and from maintaining DEI related programs, courses or offices. The statute also bars public schools from discussing a designated list of divisive concepts concerning race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and national origin. Schools found in violation face the loss of state funding. The legislative measure, known as House Bill 1193, was signed into law in April 2025. A coalition of educators, students, parents and activists has challenged the statute, arguing it infringes upon their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. According to McKenna Raney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, the group has several weeks to file a petition for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit. The law becomes effective seven days after that deadline expires or if the petition is denied. The Fifth Circuit’s decision included a sharp rebuke of the procedural history at the district level. The appellate judges ordered the case reassigned to a different district court judge after determining that United States District Judge Henry Wingate issued a temporary restraining order containing artificial intelligence hallucinations. The ruling described the initial order as a botched effort. The Fifth Circuit noted that the original temporary restraining order, issued on July 20, 2025, contained factual assertions absent from the record. These errors included references to parties not named in the complaint, declarations from individuals who did not exist or were never presented, and false quotations attributed to the text of the bill. The order also alleged the demise of fictitious programs. Judge Wingate later replaced the temporary restraining order without providing an explanation. He subsequently issued a preliminary injunction in August 2025, which the Fifth Circuit has now overturned. During oral arguments before the appellate panel, it emerged that the corrected version of the temporary restraining order, which was incorporated by reference into the preliminary injunction, still contained fabricated information. Specifically, it cited a nonexistent Fourth Circuit case titled Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk. The Fifth Circuit stated that the district judge carelessly exercised judicial power by issuing orders based on falsehoods and fabrications. When confronted with these errors, Judge Wingate maintained that the hallucinated claims did not affect his reasoning but offered no explanation for their inclusion. The appellate panel further criticized the district court’s legal analysis as impoverished. The opinion suggested that the lower court ignored and manipulated governing law, potentially to satisfy a policy agenda. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody, the Fifth Circuit instructed the newly assigned judge to conduct proceedings consistent with federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit. The ruling also clarified the scope of the Mississippi law, addressing criticisms from opponents that the statute was overly vague. The Fifth Circuit determined that the ban does not apply to scholarly activities, student activities and groups, or creative engagements. The court rejected plaintiff arguments that the law would prohibit discussions of civil rights history, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Ku Klux Klan, the Fourteenth Amendment, Juneteenth, or the novel Of Mice and Men. Raney, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi and the LGBTQ Justice Project, said it was heartening that these specific classroom discussions remain exempted and can continue unimpeded. However, she noted that the types of discussions permitted under the law remain murky. The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office, which represents the state defendants, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. State attorneys have previously argued that public employees do not possess First Amendment rights when acting in a professional capacity.