In a striking dissent, Federal Judge Jerry E. Smith has vehemently objected to the recent injunction issued against Texas’s 2025 congressional map, calling the actions of his colleagues rushed and politically biased. The legal skirmish began when a federal court halted the map’s implementation, alleging it undermined minority voting strength, despite Texas officials asserting its legality and fairness.
The controversy has sparked a national conversation on redistricting, the limits of judicial power, and the role of partisanship in governing elections. Internal court documents reveal that the injunction was expedited with apparent disregard for due process. Judge Smith, in his dissent, condemned the majority opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown as "the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed" in his 37 years of service.
The timeline, as outlined by Smith, began with a nine-day hearing that concluded on October 10. Shortly thereafter, Judges Brown and another panel member voted in favor of the injunction, while Smith opposed it. On November 5, Brown shared a 13-page outline with Smith, followed by subsequent drafts culminating in a 160-page opinion over the next two weeks. Smith criticized the majority for rushing their decision and effectively sidelining his dissent, which was filed separately.
Smith’s dissent warned that the majority had disregarded the legislature’s prerogative in redistricting, instead imposing their judicial preferences. He referenced the Fifth Circuit, noting that "the most obvious reason for mid-cycle redistricting, of course, is partisan gain." Smith accused the majority of judicial tampering with election laws on the precipice of an election, a practice the Supreme Court has repeatedly advised against.
On the topic of preliminary injunctions, Smith highlighted that Brown selectively cited precedents, omitting the word "substantial" from "substantial likelihood of success on the merits," thus lowering the bar for the injunction. Smith also argued that the majority improperly balanced factors, allowing one to overshadow others.
Smith pointed out that the majority neglected the harm inflicted on Texas and local officials by the untimely injunction, which could result in "disastrous unintended consequences." He linked the ruling to external influencers, specifically naming George Soros and California Governor Gavin Newsom as beneficiaries of the decision. Smith alleged that several attorneys in the case were connected to Soros-funded organizations and referred to an expert as "a paid Soros operative." He also mentioned Newsom’s redistricting efforts in California as evidence of the decision’s partisan bias.
Concluding his dissent, Smith asserted that the decision represented a political intrusion, unsupported by legal doctrine and disrespectful of the separation of powers. He cautioned that it delivered a victory to special interest groups while disregarding Texas voters and the rule of law.
As the case progresses toward an appeal, Smith’s dissent underscores the debate over the federal judiciary’s involvement in state electoral issues and whether the urgency for judicial action is overshadowing careful justice.
