Judge Rips 2-1 Ruling Striking Down TX Congressional Map

In a blistering dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith accused his colleagues of usurping the authority of the legislature through their “outrageous conduct” to overturn Texas’ new congressional map.

Smith’s dissent was released one day after the majority ruling came out because, according to Smith, the majority allegedly refused to wait for Smith to finish his dissent after notifying him last minute of its release.

“In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved,” Smith wrote.

Two unelected district judges issued a ruling Tuesday striking down Texas’ new House map, arguing the new map appears to be a race-based gerrymander (which is illegal). Texas redrew its map to create five additional Republican-leaning seats. Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had sent a letter to Texas in July urging them to redraw its map because of race-based districts in the existing map. When Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session to redistrict, he referenced the letter.

The majority alleged in their ruling that the DOJ’s letter urged redistricting on the basis of race. If the court’s interpretation is accurate — and if Texas did in fact redraw their map to comply with such letter, then the map would be illegal since maps cannot be race-based. However, Texas Republicans have disputed such argument, instead claiming to have redrawn the map for political purposes.

But Smith dissented, arguing that the majority opinion “would be a prime candidate” for “a Nobel Prize for Fiction.”

Smith called the majority’s ruling the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” that he has “ever witnessed” after 37 years as a federal judge.

“[The majority] could have saved … the readers a lot of time and effort by merely stating the following: I just don’t like what the Legislature did here. It was unnecessary, and it seems unfair to disadvantaged voters. I need to step in to make sure wiser heads prevail over the nakedly partisan and racially questionable actions of these zealous lawmakers. Just as I did to the lawmakers in Galveston County in Petteway, I’m using my considerable clout as a federal district judge to put a stop to bad policy judgments. After all, I get paid to do what I think is right,” Smith wrote.

Smith argued that the claim that Texas redistricted on racial grounds rather than political is absurd, writing in part:

“It makes no sense to advance the notion that the Republican Legislature would draw districts for the purpose of disadvantaging racial and ethnic minorities if, by doing so, they lessen the number of new Republican seats they might gain. The plaintiffs’ theory is both perverse and bizarre. They actually contend that if the Republicans are sincere about gaining more seats, they could have drawn not five, but six, seven, or eight additional seats and that the reason they did not is that the real reason is racial animus. The absurdity of that notion speaks for itself. Yet it’s all that the plaintiffs and Judge Brown have to offer to defeat the State’s claim that the 2025 lines were drawn for the sake of politics and not race.”

Smith continued that the majority “commits grave error in concluding that the Texas legislature is more bigoted than political” while pointing out that the other side of this political question is that Alex and George Soros are the real political winners here.

“It’s all politics, on both sides of the partisan aisle. George and Alex Soros have their hands all over this,” Smith wrote.

“The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law. I dissent,” Smith wrote. California is slated to pick up five Democrat seats after voters passed Proposition 50 to redraw the state’s maps to offset any potential GOP pickups in Texas. The DOJ has sued California, though, similar to Texas, and the appeals process could delay any changes until after the midterms, effectively locking in the new lines. “On a silver platter, Judge Brown hands Soros a victory at the expense of the People of Texas and the Rule of Law. Judge Brown won’t tell you that. I just did.”

Smith also argued that the majority’s opinion violates the Purcell principle, which stipulates courts should not make changes to voting maps too close to an election and that the majority’s opinion is the violation itself since, according to Smith, “The 2025 map is the status quo.”

“Counties have begun preparations with 2025 map and educating local officials about the current law,” Smith continued, arguing that “Contrary to what Judge Brown wants to hear, the State, which has the prerogative to redistrict mid-decade, is in a fundamentally different position from that of a federal court, which must exercise extraordinary caution before intermeddling with an intimately vital local prerogative such as redistricting.”

“This injunction will affect down-ballot races because those interesting in running for Congress must make plans not to run for State House and Senate seats. And others are sure to run for the newly-vacant state seats. This trickle-down effect is only the tip of the iceberg. Judge Brown’s injunction is the epitome of judicial tinkering,” Smith continued.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2