Federal Judge Savages Ruling Blocking Texas Redistricting, Says Opinion 'Deserves an F'

A three-judge federal panel has ordered Texas to set aside a congressional map that would have created five GOP-leaning seats, finding the plan to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The 2-1 decision was authored by Judge Jeffrey Brown (a Trump appointee) and joined by Judge David Guaderrama (an Obama appointee). Texas has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The panel's lone dissenter, Judge Jerry Smith — a Reagan appointee — filed a 104-page dissent that repeatedly declares, "I dissent," and levels sharp criticism at the majority's reasoning and process. Smith accused Judge Brown of rushing the opinion, circulating lengthy draft opinions at the last minute, and denying him adequate time to respond. He described the majority's decision in blunt terms, writing that "if this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an 'F.'"

What the judges disagreed on

The dispute centers on whether the Texas legislature's redistricting was motivated primarily by partisan advantage or by race. The majority concluded the mapmakers had drawn districts with racial considerations at the center, pointing to statements attributed to Governor Greg Abbott instructing the Legislature to eliminate so-called "coalition" districts and to create majority-Hispanic districts. Under the majority's view, those directives meant race, not politics, drove the mapmaking — and race-based gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Judge Smith rejected that view, arguing the record shows partisan aims dominated the process. He pointed to testimony from mapmaker Adam Kincaid, who explained map changes as efforts to create favorable partisan outcomes. Smith argued these explanations were "perfectly legitimate and candidly partisan," and maintained the majority improperly elevated racial explanations over ordinary political strategy.

Accusations and responses

Smith's dissent also accuses outside actors of influencing litigation and praised or benefiting from the ruling, naming megadonor George Soros and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Smith alleged several plaintiff lawyers and experts have connections to organizations that have received funding from foundations associated with the Soros family; plaintiffs reject that portrayal as irrelevant to the legal merits.

"As a legal and practical matter, Judge Brown's injunction turns the Texas electoral and political landscape upside down," Smith wrote, warning of "mayhem, chaos, misinformation, and confusion."

One of the plaintiffs, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), called Smith's account "flatly contradicted by the record" and said protecting voters from racial discrimination is a constitutional duty. LULAC CEO Juan Proaño said the majority acted to "uphold the law and safeguard the rights of millions of Texans."

Reactions have rippled beyond Texas: several states adjusted their maps this year in response to Texas' effort, including California, which reshaped five districts to be more favorable to Democrats. California Governor Gavin Newsom responded to Smith's criticism by acknowledging his state's changes were partisan by design.

The legal fight will continue at the Supreme Court, where Texas has appealed. The case raises central questions about the line between permissible partisan redistricting and unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering — a dispute with major implications for congressional races ahead of next year's midterms.