A federal judge on the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scathing 100-page dissent in a Texas redistricting case, accusing his colleagues of rushing their majority opinion and undermining judicial integrity. The dissent, which repeatedly states “I dissent,” highlights deep divisions over the court’s decision to block Texas’ new congressional map for the 2026 elections.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2025, Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, released his dissent in the case challenging Texas’ newly drawn congressional districts. He criticized Judges Jeffrey Brown and David Guaderrama for publishing their 2-1 majority opinion the day before without waiting for his dissent, calling it “outrageous conduct” and a breach of judicial norms. Smith emphasized that this behavior eroded any pretense of good faith or trust among the panel, stating it was the most egregious he had encountered in his 37 years on the bench.
The majority, led by Trump-appointed Judge Brown, ruled that Texas’ 2025 redistricting map is likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and blocked its use in the upcoming midterms. Brown’s 160-page opinion argued that challengers were likely to prove racial discrimination, citing the need to avoid last-minute election changes under the Purcell principle. This decision temporarily reverts Texas to using the 2021 congressional maps, which could alter the political landscape for the 2026 elections and represents a significant setback for Republicans who had championed the new boundaries.
Smith detailed the timeline leading to the ruling’s release, noting that Brown informed him last week of the intent to issue the opinion soon due to Purcell concerns. On Tuesday morning, Brown sent a note stating they couldn’t wait for the dissent, and the majority opinion was published shortly after. Smith accused the judges of acting unfairly and suggested they were afraid to engage with his arguments, questioning their confidence in the ruling and warning that such actions could set a harmful precedent for judicial conduct.
In his 100-page dissent, Smith argued that the redistricting was motivated by partisan politics rather than racial bias. He pointed to external factors like California’s Proposition 50 and references to George and Alex Soros to support his claim that the issue is purely political. The dissent is filled with sharp critiques, including pop culture references like quoting “All About Eve,” and accuses the majority of legal and factual errors, as well as procedural abuse, while repeatedly emphasizing his disagreement with phrases like “I dissent.”
The ruling has significant implications for the 2026 elections, potentially benefiting Democrats by maintaining older district lines. Texas has already appealed the decision, which could lead to further legal battles, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. Smith warned that the majority’s actions promote a “might makes right” approach that could undermine judicial independence and public trust in the courts, with broader consequences for how similar cases are handled nationwide.
This case is part of a broader national struggle over gerrymandering, where both parties use redistricting to gain electoral advantages. The intense dissent reflects the high stakes and polarized nature of such issues, showing how procedural disputes can overshadow substantive legal arguments. As the appeal progresses, the outcome may influence similar cases across the country, highlighting the ongoing challenges in balancing political interests with constitutional principles and the rule of law.
