Judge Criticizes Colleagues Over Texas Map Ruling as ‘Fiction’ and ‘Activism’

A recent dissent by Judge Jerry Smith regarding a Texas redistricting map ruling has sparked significant controversy. The federal judge fiercely criticized his colleagues after they ruled against the state’s newly drawn congressional districts, labeling the decision as a prime example of ‘judicial activism.’

Judge’s Criticism of Colleagues

Judge Smith, a Reagan appointee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, expressed his discontent in a 104-page dissent. He targeted U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, for his majority opinion, which claimed the map was the result of unconstitutional gerrymandering. In his dissent, Smith declared the ruling deserving of a “Nobel Prize for Fiction.”

Key Points from the Dissent

• Judge Smith accused the majority of exhibiting “pernicious judicial misbehavior.”
• He claimed that the decision favored Democratic figures, such as George Soros.
• According to Smith, the ruling would negatively impact the people of Texas and the rule of law.

Supreme Court’s Involvement

In light of the ruling, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in the redistricting saga. The majority opinion temporarily blocks the use of the state’s map, which designed five new Republican-leaning districts.

Implications for the Midterms

The case has significant implications as Texas candidates must declare their candidacy by December 8. The Supreme Court is under pressure to act quickly on this pivotal election issue, especially since it parallels a related Voting Rights Act case from Louisiana currently before the justices.

Concerns Over Racial Gerrymandering

Under the majority opinion, Judge Brown asserted substantial evidence of racial gerrymandering in Texas’ new congressional map. The Department of Justice previously alerted Texas officials about potential racial issues in four districts.

As the situation develops, the focus remains on how these judicial decisions will influence the upcoming 2026 midterm elections and beyond, with the potential for broader implications on electoral policies across the country.