4:04In this archival image from Aug. 6, 2025, U.S. Congressional District layouts are on display during a session of the Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting, convened to hear solicited input regarding Congressional plan C2308 at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images, FILE
When a U.S. court issued its startling 160-page ruling this Tuesday, invalidating Texas Republicans’ redistricting endeavors from the middle of the decade as flagrant racial gerrymandering, a significant aspect was notably absent: a disagreement.
As it happens, Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump selection who penned the core rationale, seemingly offered minimal time for opposing Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Reagan nominee, to offer a written rebuttal, making the determination public prior to the completion of the contrasting viewpoint, in contrast to convention.
“Brace yourselves. It’s shaping up to be a difficult period!” Smith stated plainly in an announcement issued late Wednesday.
What transpired was a noteworthy articulation of pointed individual critique and impactful legal reasoning, remarkable for both its character and justification, possibly influencing members of the Supreme Court who will eventually decide the destiny of Texas’ 2025 map.
U.S. District Judge Jerry Brown is pictured in this archived photograph, date unknown.U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas
Smith, a figure on the federal bench for more than 37 years, reiterated the words “I dissent” on 15 occasions across 100 pages.
He blamed Brown for “harmful judicial misconduct” — the “most shocking behavior by a judge that I have ever witnessed” — due to not waiting to deliberate on his disagreement before publicly announcing the judgment.
Brown’s judgment, alongside that of Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, which was disseminated Tuesday afternoon, prevented Texas from employing a fresh congressional layout for the 2026 midterm elections, concluding that “considerable evidence demonstrates that Texas racially gerrymandered the map.”
The pronouncement agitated a nationwide redistricting contest initiated by President Donald Trump as a strategy to sustain Republican dominance of the closely controlled House of Representatives. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has declared his intent to appeal.
In this archival image from Aug. 6, 2025, U.S. Congressional District maps are on display during a session of the Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting, convened to hear solicited input regarding Congressional plan C2308 at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas.Brandon Bell/Getty Images, FILE
Brown determined that the complete redrawing endeavor — which generally only takes place once per decade — was mainly undertaken in response to a specific request from the Trump Justice Department “founded entirely on the racial composition” of four districts held by Democrats.
Federal legislation and Supreme Court principles forbid race as a leading aspect when creating layouts that intentionally strip minority voters of their rights or otherwise weaken their impact.
The judge also reasoned that his judgment needed to be issued without delay — even ahead of the completion of the disagreement — due to the pressing requirement for state authorities to possess clarity regarding the result to prepare for the election period.
Smith accused Brown of acting under the direction of liberal billionaire activist George Soros and Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. “If there were an award for fictional writing, Judge Brown’s judgment would be a strong contender,” Smith wrote.
“If this were an academic test in law school, the judgment would warrant a failing grade,” he later stated in an uncharacteristically harsh censure.
Smith defended Texas’ redrawn map from the middle of the decade as a purely partisan and entirely legitimate action.
“The most straightforward reason for redistricting during the cycle, naturally, is partisan advantage,” not purposeful racial bias, Smith wrote. He mentioned that the Supreme Court has indicated that courts should refrain from interfering with the political action of creating maps.
Smith concluded his disagreement with a remarkable list of bullet points outlining what he describes as “misleading, deceptive, or untrue statements” made by Brown in the judgment — an exceptionally uncommon step in the regulated sphere of judicial protocol.
Texas has not yet formally submitted its appeal to the Supreme Court but is anticipated to do so quickly and will probably rely on Smith’s disagreement.
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
