A federal judge has unleashed a blistering 104-page takedown of a colleague’s ruling on Texas’s new House map, calling it nothing short of judicial overreach.
The Hill reported that U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith dissented fiercely against a majority opinion authored by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, which struck down Texas’s Republican-leaning House map as a probable racial gerrymander.
This saga began when Brown, appointed by President Trump, circulated an outline of his majority opinion two weeks before the final ruling, giving little time for dissenters to prepare.
Smith, a Reagan appointee, wasn’t given a full draft until this past Thursday, and with personal commitments—including attending a fellow judge’s funeral—he scrambled over the weekend to craft his response.
Brown, however, didn’t wait, issuing the final majority opinion on Tuesday, mere minutes after sending Smith the completed version, citing the urgency of the Purcell principle, which cautions against altering voting maps close to elections.
“Purcell compels us to get the ruling out as soon as we possibly can. It turns out that’s today,” Brown wrote, brushing aside Smith’s need for more time.
Smith didn’t hold back, accusing Brown of “pernicious judicial misbehavior” and claiming the rushed timeline diminished the impact of his meticulously argued dissent.
He even included internal correspondence in his 104-page critique, alleging Brown gave him no reasonable chance to respond fully to the majority opinion.
Let’s be real—when a judge races to publish a ruling without fair collaboration, it smells like agenda-driven haste rather than impartial justice.
Smith’s dissent wasn’t just long; it was a rhetorical sledgehammer, labeling Brown a “legislator/activist jurist” and mocking his opinion as something that would flunk a law school exam.
“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, pulling no punches.
That’s a veteran judge calling out what he sees as a dangerous overstep, and it’s hard not to wonder if progressive judicial activism is creeping into decisions that should prioritize law over politics.
The Texas House map at the heart of this storm could have created up to five pickup opportunities for Republicans in the midterms, a significant shift now halted by Brown’s ruling.
Smith argued that Brown’s opinion relied on questionable credibility of challengers’ witnesses, dubbing Brown an “easy grader” while dismissing his analysis as living in “fantasyland” on a crusade against Texas Republicans.
While fairness in voting maps matters, one can’t help but question if this majority ruling is less about justice and more about thwarting conservative gains under the guise of principle.