Jurist Berates Fellow Jurist in Lone Star State Map Drawing Case

In a extraordinarily uncommon legal statement, a US federal judge rebuked his colleague judge with a string of individual criticisms, and hinted that billionaire George Soros had a role in an opinion striking down Texas’s congressional districts.

Dissenting Opinion Takes Aim at Fellow Judges

The 104-page opposing statement from US district judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, was published a day after two of his panel members on a court panel said the fresh congressional map Texas implemented earlier this year was potentially invalid because it disadvantaged non-white voters.

But a significant part of Smith’s dissent attacked US district judge Jeffrey Brown, a jurist appointed by Trump and the opinion’s drafter, accusing him of knowingly releasing an opinion before Smith had been given the opportunity to write his dissent.

“In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most shocking conduct by a judge that I have ever witnessed in a case in which I have been involved,” Smith stated, continuing to provide a detailed account of his communications with Brown as he drafted the majority opinion.

“If, however, there were a international honor for invention, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a top nominee.”

Attention Shifts to George Soros and Public Officials

In a astonishing turn, Smith turned his attention to George Soros, Soros’s son Alex and the California governor, Gavin Newsom, none of whom participants in the case. The name Soros is mentioned 17 times in the opinion.

“The primary winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The evident losers are the citizens of Texas and the judicial standards,” Smith commented.

Newsom managed to sway California voters to pass a across California ballot referendum that will add as many as five liberal-inclined congressional districts in that state. Newsom declared the effort as Texas moved forward with its own new map to add five GOP-friendly districts.

Links to External Organizations Emphasized

Smith pointed out that several lawyers in the case are connected with organizations that receive funding from Open Society Foundations, a Soros non-profit. In a footnote, he said: “I emphasize that all of them work, as officers of this court, with honesty and competence. Their ideological circumstance does not distract from the fact that they satisfy the best practices of the profession and assist this court in the administration of justice.”

He also charged an expert witness of being a “Soros operative|Soros agent|affiliate of Soros}”.

Partisan Context and Responses

Trump has targeted Open Society Foundations, a primary contributor of progressive entities, and the justice department is said to be considering options to probe it. The president has said George Soros deserves to be in jail.

“It’s all partisan maneuvering, on either side of the political divide. George and Alex Soros have their influence across this,” Smith remarked.

The reproach comes as judges across the country have faced unprecedented threats and intimidation. Some have even begun to speak out against them more forcefully.

Legal Challenge Planned

The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, has said he will challenge the panel’s ruling to the US supreme court and ask the members to intervene and suspend the ruling.

The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, posted a tweet in response to the dissent, voicing her support for it: “Would not have phrased it better myself.”

Specialist Analysis on Approach

While many Republican-aligned experts applauded Smith’s opinion on Wednesday, the method could have negative consequences in front of the US supreme court, Richard Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a blogpost on Wednesday.

“Simply as a matter of planning, if Judge Smith’s audience is the supreme court, I think he would have been much more impactful if he had been balanced and focused more attention on what he sees as the flaws in the merits of the case, rather than to persistently make accusations on the other judges, experts, and lawyers in the case,” he wrote.

“Maybe what he says will find acceptance with some of the supreme court justices, but I predict some will be turned off by this tirade.”