Judge Jerry Smith, known for his unconventional judicial opinions, has once again captured the spotlight with a controversial 104-page dissent in the Texas redistricting case. This latest episode not only challenges the majority’s decisions but also delves into a deep-seated critique against fellow Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by Trump and a former Texas Supreme Court justice.

In his opening statement, Smith vehemently denies causing delays in the injunction process and accuses Judge Brown of judicial misbehavior, setting a fiery tone for the dissent that follows. Despite being given a draft of the majority opinion well in advance, Smith’s narrative suggests that the majority’s expedited decision-making is a strategy to dodge a detailed counter from his end, raising questions about their motivations.

The core of Smith’s dissent revolves around the Purcell principle, which advises courts to avoid last-minute decisions that could confuse voters. However, Smith sees this as a pretext used by the majority to rush their decision, potentially influencing the electoral process unfairly.

Smith’s dissent is peppered with references to George Soros, mentioning him 17 times in contexts that seem tangentially related at best. This fixation has sparked criticism and raised eyebrows about the underlying intentions of these references, as it appears disconnected from the main issues of the redistricting case.

The dissent does not shy away from sarcasm and overt criticism towards the majority’s approach, which Smith perceives as overlooking the partisan manipulation of district boundaries that could disenfranchise minority voters. His argument is that while redistricting for partisan advantage might not be unconstitutional, using it as a cover for racial discrimination certainly is.

Furthermore, Smith’s rhetoric escalates when discussing the implications of the majority’s decisions on the legislative process. He suggests that by overturning the 2025 redistricting maps, the court is effectively leaving Texas without any valid electoral maps, creating a constitutional crisis just before an important election.

This judicial saga has not only highlighted deep divisions within the court but also underscored the complex interplay between law, politics, and individual judicial philosophies. Smith’s dissent, filled with legal jargon, personal attacks, and political innuendos, offers a stark portrait of a judge who is unafraid to stir controversy and challenge the norms of judicial conduct.

As this legal drama continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how these fiery debates will influence the broader landscape of electoral law and judicial ethics. What is clear, however, is that Judge Jerry Smith’s latest dissent is more than just a legal document; it is a bold statement in a highly charged political saga.