Federal Judge Slams Colleagues Over Blocked Texas Congressional Map
A U.S. Circuit judge issued a blistering dissent after two fellow federal judges blocked a new Texas congressional map, saying he was shut out of their deliberations and denouncing their legal reasoning. The ruling, which found the map likely violated voting rights law by racially sorting voters, halted a Republican effort to protect House seats and set the stage for a Supreme Court appeal.
On November 19, 2025, a three judge federal panel blocked a new Texas congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers to maximize their party advantage, and one member of the panel responded with a rare and scathing dissent. U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, said he had been excluded from the majority’s deliberations and excoriated the majority opinion for what he described as deeply flawed legal work.
The majority concluded that the map likely violated federal voting rights law by racially sorting voters, and it enjoined the map from taking effect. The court’s finding represented a significant legal setback for Texas Republicans who designed the plan to shore up vulnerable incumbents and protect the party’s delegation in the U.S. House. The opinion also concluded that Texas Governor Greg Abbott had directed redistricting based on race after pressure from the Justice Department tied to the White House. Abbott has said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Smith’s dissent was notable for its tone as well as its substance. He accused his colleagues of shutting him out of their deliberations and criticized the majority’s reasoning in blunt terms. He wrote, "If this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an 'F.'" That language underscored a rare breach in the collegiality that typically governs multi judge federal panels and highlighted divergent judicial views on how to apply voting rights protections to redistricting disputes.
The dispute sharpens a broader clash over how courts police the line between race conscious districting and partisan redistricting. The majority’s determination that racial sorting was a likely factor invokes established protections against race based districting, a legal theory that has prompted high court scrutiny in recent years. For Republicans in Texas and across the country, the ruling threatens maps designed with sophisticated data to concentrate or dilute particular voter groups in order to secure electoral outcomes.
The procedural path ahead is clear. Abbott plans to take the challenge to the Supreme Court, which in recent years has issued several high profile rulings shaping the contours of voting rights and redistricting law. A Supreme Court review would fold this dispute into national debates about judicial oversight of state maps and the proper role of race based analysis in redistricting.
Beyond the legal trajectory, the decision carries immediate political consequences. Blocking the map alters the strategic landscape for candidates and parties preparing for upcoming elections, and it may require the state legislature or a court to adopt an alternative plan on compressed timelines. The episode also raises institutional questions about panel deliberations and disclosure among federal judges when high stakes political litigation is at issue.
As the appeal moves forward, the case will be closely watched for its potential to shape future redistricting practice and to recalibrate the balance between state power and federal voting rights enforcement.
