A thousand years ago, English law had a plain rule for dogs. If your dog bit someone, you answered for it.
Scholars at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center think that’s a good rule for artificial intelligence. The Harvard Gazette lays out their idea under the headline "Is that bot a Pomeranian or a wolf — and who to sue when it ‘bites?"
They sort AI by two questions. How dangerous is it? And is there an owner who can be held to account? A low-risk chatbot with a clear owner is a Pomeranian. A high-stakes system still under human control is a pit bull. Pit bulls are allowed. But somebody holds the leash, and somebody pays when it bites.
In Jackson, we just had a dog bite. And the judge who was not holding the leash is the same man who runs our water. The dog bite: On July 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate blocked Mississippi's new law on DEI programs in public schools. His order named plaintiffs who were not in the case. It named defendants nobody had sued. It relied on declarations from four people who do not appear in the record. It quoted words the statute does not contain.
When the Attorney General flagged the errors, the judge did not explain. He pulled the order off the public docket, posted a backdated "corrected" version, and called the mistakes "clerical." Only after Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded answers did the truth come out. The Judge’s law clerk used an AI program, Perplexity, as a "foundational drafting assistant." According to the Judge himself it: "should have never been docketed."
The Fifth Circuit Court took the case away from the judge on appeal — a step it said was extraordinary and rarely invoked. It called the proceedings "a botch job, to say the least." It found that even the corrected order cited "an apparent AI hallucination." Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote "This district judge carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications."
He went on to say: “The District Court — or perhaps being charitable, its AI agent — ignored and manipulated governing law apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.” Under Harvard’s rule, the responsibility is his. The dog did not sign the order. It’s owner, the Judge, did.
The same Judge runs our water system. Since 2022, he has been, in effect, the board of directors and CEO of Jackson's water system. Has he run it to satisfy a policy agenda too? He appointed Ted Henifin as the federal manager. Henifin runs the systems through JXN Water. Henifin answers only to the Judge. No mayor. No council. No Public Service Commission. No voters.
The results are mixed at best. In February, the Judge approved a 12 percent rate increase and called the City's opposition "fiscal fantasy." JXN Water now says it needs 10 percent more in 2027, 9 percent in 2028, and 8 percent in 2029. Earlier this year, about 4,000 properties were getting water without being billed or metered. A “Water Availability Charge” based on meter size seems more like a property tax than a water bill. It hits the more than one in four Jackson residents who live in poverty especially hard.
Who will run the water system when the receivership ends? Henifin's new plan would create an authority whose first board is appointed by the Judge. Federal oversight could run to December 2029. Same song third verse.
The Judge has already partly blocked the MS Legislature's own water authority, and the State has appealed. The state environmental agency says it first saw the plan's alternatives on Oct. 5 and has asked for 30 more days. The mayor wants a hearing. Probably the City Council too.
To be fair, the Judge has not rubber-stamped everything. He held a dozen hearings on rates. Was his decision based on what he learned from the hearings — or on a policy agenda? And to be fair he didn’t volunteer for the job. He didn’t seem to be in a hurry to finish it though. The receivership exists because our own Jackson leaders let the system collapse. Enough blame to go around.
But look at the structure of the cure. One judge, appointed for life, is regulator, referee, and boss of the utility at the same time. Who controls him? Who holds his leash? Has he used AI carelessly to run the city’s water system too.
The Harvard piece is blunt about owners. With a clear owner, it says, the "companies or government agencies behind them remain legally responsible for fixing mistakes and compensating anyone harmed." The Judge’s court is a government agency. Jackson ratepayers are the dog bite victims.
AI is becoming ubiquitous. It’s useful, but also fallible. I’m learning to use it. Sometimes it fetches the wrong thing. Sometimes it runs off with the bumper. Sometimes it chases an imaginary rabbit. Sometimes it dances with wolves. It bears watching and caution when using as an agent. These are not reasons not to use it. These are reasons to hold the leash.
So here are some questions: 1) Has AI been used to draft any order or analyze any issues in the Jackson water case? 2) If so, has this been disclosed? 3) Have mistakes, if any, been corrected on the record? Not erased and not backdated?
AI does not sign the orders. The Judge does. In Jackson, that means he signs off on the water bill, too.
Dogs have collars with their owners’ names — in case the dog gets lost. Also useful if the dog bites someone. The Harvard article suggests a digital dog tag for AI pit bulls.
I’m not a pit bull. But I put a digital dog tag on this column.
Kelley Williams, a Northsider, is chairman of Bigger Pie, a Jackson-based think tank promoting free markets and government efficiency.
