A stunning dissent erupted in a Texas federal court, revealing a deep rift among judges over the state’s redrawn electoral map. Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, unleashed a scathing 104-page rebuke of his colleague, Judge Jeffrey Brown, and the court’s decision to temporarily block the map’s use in the 2026 midterms.
Smith’s language was exceptionally forceful, labeling the majority opinion “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had ever witnessed. He repeatedly attacked Judge Brown’s reasoning, accusing him of “pernicious judicial misbehavior” and suggesting the opinion deserved a failing grade if submitted as a law school exam.
The core of the dispute centers on accusations of racial gerrymandering. The majority opinion argued the map, which created five new Republican-leaning districts, was unconstitutional. Smith vehemently disagreed, claiming the decision favored Democratic interests and specifically named mega-donor George Soros and California Governor Gavin Newsom as beneficiaries.
What amplified the drama was the timing of the court’s release. The majority judges issued their ruling before Smith’s dissent was even filed, a move he interpreted as a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. He questioned their haste, asking what they feared would happen if they allowed his arguments to be considered alongside their own.
Judge Brown, joined by Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, had opened his majority opinion with a quote from Chief Justice John Roberts about the importance of colorblindness in the law. However, Brown’s opinion found “substantial evidence” that Texas intentionally drew districts based on race, responding to directives from the Department of Justice regarding districts with non-White majorities.
The case has already reached the Supreme Court, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott seeking immediate relief. The court is also currently considering a similar Voting Rights Act case from Louisiana, adding further urgency to the situation. The outcome could significantly impact the political landscape of Texas and the 2026 midterm elections.
The dispute stems from a rushed redistricting effort initiated by Governor Abbott after receiving a warning from the Department of Justice. This led to a dramatic protest earlier this year, with Democratic state lawmakers fleeing the state in an attempt to block the changes. The court ultimately found that the Governor had explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict based on race.
The intensity of Judge Smith’s dissent underscores the high stakes involved. His words paint a picture of a deeply fractured court and a battle over the fundamental principles of fair representation. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely be pivotal in determining the future of elections in Texas.
