A Judge's Strong Words: A Clash Over Texas' Redrawn Maps

In a surprising turn of events, a federal judge has strongly criticized his colleagues for releasing their decision in a major Texas redistricting case before he could finish his dissent. Judge Jerry Smith, who serves on the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, accused the other judges of acting in bad faith and rushing their ruling. Smith's 100-page dissent is a harsh critique of the majority's decision, which blocked Texas from using its newly drawn congressional map for the upcoming midterms. The majority opinion, written by US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, argued that the map was likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. However, Smith disagreed, stating that the decision was driven by partisan politics rather than racial concerns. Smith's dissent is filled with strong language, accusing the majority of making legal and factual errors and procedural abuse. He argued that the decision to redraw the maps was motivated by partisan gain, citing the involvement of liberal donors like George and Alex Soros. He also mentioned California Governor Gavin Newsom's role in counteracting the Texas effort, suggesting that the case was more about politics than race. The judge also took issue with how the majority described the standard for blocking the map quickly, accusing them of misleading the public. Throughout his dissent, Smith used dramatic language, referencing the 1950 movie "All About Eve" and ending with a warning about the "darkness descending on the Rule of Law. " The majority's decision to release their ruling without Smith's dissent attached has raised questions about judicial conduct. Smith argued that this action diminished the impact of his dissent and set a dangerous precedent. He also expressed concern that the majority was afraid of his dissent and that's why they rushed their ruling. This case is significant because it could impact the upcoming midterms, with the ruling being a major setback for Republicans who had made Texas a key part of their national campaign to redraw maps. The case also highlights the ongoing tension between judicial restraint and political influence in the courts.