A three‑judge panel led by a Trump appointee issued a 160‑page opinion blocking Texas’s congressional map. Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, responded with a 104‑page dissent that opens with the cinematic admonition:
Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!
Smith begins with a procedural complaint: he says the majority author, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, issued the ruling without giving him a reasonable opportunity to review or respond. Smith calls Brown's conduct the most outrageous he has encountered in four decades on the bench and frames that procedural issue as central to his objections.
But Smith’s dissent moves quickly from procedure to broad, pointed attacks on the majority opinion and its perceived backers. He names public figures and donors, asserting that "the main winners from Judge Brown's opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom" and that the "obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law." The dissent repeatedly characterizes an expert retained by plaintiffs as a "paid Soros operative" and alleges the expert stands to receive substantial payments.
Smith anticipates criticism that invoking political figures is improper for a judge, but insists that describing the political dynamics surrounding redistricting litigation is relevant to the case. Still, many readers will see the tone and rhetoric as unusually partisan for judicial writing.
On the legal merits, the disagreement is straightforward. The majority concluded the Texas map likely amounts to an unlawful racial gerrymander rather than merely a partisan map — a distinction that, if correct, would make the map vulnerable under voting‑rights law. Smith disputes that conclusion, arguing the dispute is fundamentally about partisan politics rather than impermissible race‑based line‑drawing.
Smith also criticizes the timing of the ruling, faulting the panel for issuing a decision before the Supreme Court hands down a pivotal redistricting decision in a pending case referenced in the dissent as Callais. He argues it is premature and speculative for a court to resolve these issues before the high court clarifies the governing law.
Beyond the substance, Smith peppers his opinion with sharp rhetorical flourishes — calling Brown an "unskilled magician" and cataloging what he describes as misleading or false statements in the majority opinion. He closes with a non‑exhaustive list of disputed passages and suggests the list could be much longer with more time.
What happens next
The state is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, which will now consider the competing views from two Republican‑appointed judges on the same panel. The outcome may depend both on legal analysis and on how receptive the justices are to Smith’s combative style and his framing of the dispute as partisan rather than racial.
The exchange lays bare intense disagreements within the federal judiciary over the role of race and politics in redistricting cases and highlights how timing and tone can shape high‑stakes litigation as the nation awaits further guidance from the Supreme Court.
