Scathing Dissent: Judge Accuses Colleague, Links Soros to Texas Map

A U.S. federal judge has ignited a firestorm within the judiciary, issuing an extraordinary 104-page dissent that not only launched a scathing critique against a judicial colleague but also implicated billionaire financier George Soros and California Governor Gavin Newsom in a ruling that struck down Texas’s new congressional districts.

The highly unusual opinion, penned by U.S. District Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, surfaced just one day after two of his peers on a three-judge panel concluded that the congressional map adopted by Texas earlier this year was likely unlawful. The majority opinion asserted that the new boundaries discriminated against non-white voters, a finding that prompted Smith’s furious response.

Unprecedented Judicial Rebuke

Much of Judge Smith’s extensive dissent was directed at U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee and the author of the majority opinion. Smith accused Brown of deliberately releasing the majority’s decision before Smith had been afforded an adequate opportunity to finalize and file his dissenting view.

“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, meticulously detailing a play-by-play of his communications with Brown during the opinion-writing process. He went on to deliver a particularly sharp barb, stating, “If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

Soros and Newsom Allegations

In a staggering departure from typical judicial discourse, Smith’s dissent then pivoted to accuse individuals who were not even parties to the case: George Soros, his son Alex Soros, and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The name “Soros” appears no less than 17 times throughout the document.

“The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the people of Texas and the rule of law,” Smith declared. This assertion links the outcome of the Texas redistricting case to broader political maneuvers, despite the lack of direct involvement from the named figures.

Political Context and Funding

Smith highlighted Governor Newsom’s successful campaign to persuade California voters to pass a statewide ballot referendum. This measure is poised to create up to five new Democratic-leaning congressional districts in California. Newsom’s initiative was announced as Texas simultaneously moved forward with its own new map, designed to add five GOP-friendly districts.

Further fueling his allegations, Judge Smith pointed out that several lawyers involved in the Texas redistricting litigation are affiliated with organizations that receive financial backing from the Open Society Foundations, a non-profit established by George Soros. However, in a footnote, Smith acknowledged a critical caveat: “I emphasize that all of them serve, as officers of this court, with integrity a…”

This extraordinary dissent underscores the intense political and legal battles surrounding redistricting efforts across the nation. Judge Smith’s fiery rebuke and allegations have injected an unprecedented level of controversy into an already contentious legal landscape concerning Texas’s congressional boundaries.

Source: The Guardian