This news article reports on a highly contentious legal battle over the redrawing of Texas’s congressional districts. The case, *LULAC v. Abbott*, involves a disagreement over whether the new district lines were drawn with partisan gain or racial considerations in mind. A key part of the story is a strongly worded dissent from Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, who accuses a fellow judge, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, of misconduct and a clear bias in favor of the plaintiffs.
The Core of the Dispute
At its heart, the case centers on whether the Texas legislature, when redrawing the congressional district maps in 2025, was motivated by political advantage or racial discrimination. The plaintiffs, including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), argue that the new maps were designed to dilute the voting power of minority groups. The defendants, which include Texas Governor Greg Abbott, maintain that the maps were created with the goal of maximizing Republican representation.
Judge Smith’s Accusations
The most striking element of this case is Judge Smith’s dissent, which reads more like a scathing indictment than a standard legal opinion. He accuses Judge Brown of:
* Misconduct: Judge Smith claims Judge Brown issued a 160-page opinion granting a preliminary injunction without giving him sufficient time to respond. Judge Smith alleges he was given a draft opinion just five days before its issuance, and his attempts to prepare a dissenting opinion were dismissed due to time constraints.
* Partisan Bias: Judge Smith argues that Judge Brown’s opinion is driven by a pre-determined outcome, favoring the plaintiffs and their arguments. He accuses Judge Brown of twisting legal standards and misrepresenting evidence to support his conclusion that the new maps are unconstitutional. Judge Smith believes that the main winners of Judge Brown’s opinion are not the people of Texas, but “George Soros and Gavin Newsom,” as stated in his dissent.
* Judicial Activism: Judge Smith contends that Judge Brown is engaging in judicial activism, overstepping his role by substituting his own policy preferences for those of the Texas legislature. He suggests that the judge is more interested in achieving a specific outcome than in upholding the rule of law.
The Allegations of Political Influence and Funding
Judge Smith’s dissent alleges that the plaintiffs’ case is heavily influenced by political actors and funding from sources such as George Soros. He highlights the involvement of experts and lawyers connected to the Open Society Foundations, which is led by George Soros. Judge Smith also points to statements from prominent Democrats, including Governor Gavin Newsom, who celebrated the ruling, further suggesting the political nature of the case.
The Key Arguments and Evidence
The case hinges on whether the plaintiffs can prove that the Texas legislature’s primary motivation in redrawing the districts was racial discrimination. Judge Smith’s dissent systematically dismantles the plaintiffs’ arguments and the evidence presented by Judge Brown, including expert testimony and the interpretation of the map’s outcomes. Judge Smith’s dissent emphasizes that the obvious reason for mid-cycle redistricting “is partisan gain.”
The dissenting opinion focuses on the map-drawer’s testimony, Adam Kincaid, who stated that he used a race-blind process when drawing the maps. Judge Smith supports the map-drawer’s account. Judge Smith’s dissent also points to the fact that there were changes from the 2021 to the 2025 maps, and what that meant for some of the districts.
Judge Smith also accuses Judge Brown of misinterpreting the standard for granting a preliminary injunction, arguing that the judge downplayed the importance of the “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” factor. He also criticizes Judge Brown’s treatment of the legal principle established in *Purcell v. Milligan*.
The Implications of the Ruling
Judge Brown’s decision, if upheld, would likely force Texas to redraw its congressional maps again, potentially disrupting the 2026 elections. Judge Smith argues that the ruling violates the Purcell principle, which cautions against last-minute changes to election rules.
What’s Next?
Given the strong dissent, it is almost guaranteed that this case will be appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will now have to weigh the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. The ultimate outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the political landscape of Texas and the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.