Listen to the article
In a stunning rebuke, a federal judge in Texas issued a scathing 104-page dissent Wednesday following a court’s decision to invalidate the state’s redrawn congressional map, repeatedly invoking Democratic mega-donor George Soros and launching dozens of personal attacks against his colleague.
Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, condemned the ruling as “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed” after a 2-1 decision struck down Texas’ newly drawn electoral boundaries.
The majority opinion, authored by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, found that Texas had engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering when creating five new Republican-leaning districts. Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, joined Brown in the majority.
Smith’s extraordinary dissent mentioned Judge Brown by name hundreds of times, accusing him of “pernicious judicial misbehavior” and suggesting the majority opinion would be a “prime candidate” for a “Nobel Prize for Fiction.”
“The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom,” Smith wrote. “The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.”
The Yale Law School graduate added that “if this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an ‘F.'”
Perhaps just as remarkable as the content of Smith’s dissent was its timing. The two judges in the majority did not wait for Smith to finalize his opinion, issuing their decision on Tuesday with Smith’s dissent appearing on the court docket a day later.
“Any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith, or trust by these two judges is gone,” Smith wrote. “If these judges were so sure of their result, they would not have been so unfairly eager to issue the opinion sans my dissent, or they could have waited for the dissent in order to join issue with it. What indeed are they afraid of?”
The ruling temporarily blocks Texas from using its redrawn congressional map in the 2026 midterm elections. Republican Governor Greg Abbott has already appealed to the Supreme Court for emergency relief, creating time pressure as Texas law requires candidates to declare their candidacy by December 8.
The Supreme Court is already considering a similar Voting Rights Act case from Louisiana, having heard oral arguments last month. The justices are expected to address the race provisions of the law, which are relevant to the Texas case, during their current term.
In his majority opinion, Judge Brown opened with a quote from Chief Justice John Roberts: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Brown concluded that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” citing Department of Justice Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon’s earlier warning to Texas to address four districts with non-White majorities because they were “coalition” districts. The opinion noted that Dhillon ignored all other Democrat-leaning districts with White majorities, suggesting a race-based directive.
According to Brown, “The Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race.” Abbott had added redistricting to the legislative agenda in response to Dhillon’s warning, sparking significant controversy that included Democratic state lawmakers fleeing Texas earlier this year in protest.
This contentious redistricting battle represents a crucial election issue that could significantly impact the 2026 midterm elections. The outcome will help determine the balance of power in Congress, with Republicans hoping to maintain their advantage in Texas, a state that has leaned increasingly Republican in recent elections despite demographic changes.
The case highlights the ongoing national debate over redistricting, race, and voting rights that has intensified following the 2020 census, with both parties fighting for electoral advantages through the once-per-decade redrawing of congressional boundaries.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
While I don’t have a strong opinion on the legal merits of this case, the heated rhetoric from the dissenting judge is concerning. The public deserves impartial, fact-based rulings from the courts, not partisan bickering.
Redistricting is always a contentious issue, and it’s important that the process is fair and upholds democratic principles. This case highlights the need for clear, non-partisan guidelines to ensure electoral districts are drawn equitably.
This is a fascinating case that highlights the ongoing debates around redistricting and the role of the judiciary. While reasonable people can disagree, it’s concerning to see such strong partisan rhetoric from a judge.
This case underscores the ongoing tensions between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches when it comes to redistricting. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and what broader implications it may have.
The dissenting judge’s personal attacks on his colleagues are troubling and undermine the impartiality the public expects from the courts. Regardless of one’s political leanings, judicial decisions should be based on the law, not partisan agendas.
Judicial activism is a serious charge, and the dissenting judge’s strong language suggests deep divisions on the bench. I hope the courts can find a way to resolve this dispute objectively and uphold the rule of law.
As someone interested in mining and energy issues, I’m curious to see how this redistricting case could impact the political landscape and policies around those industries. It’s an important issue to follow.
Bringing in figures like George Soros seems like an attempt to politicize the issue further. The focus should be on the legal merits of the case, not inflammatory rhetoric.