EL PASO, Tx., November 21, 2025: In an update to a story we brought you yesterday about a panel of three judges ruling that the recently adopted Republican congressional maps were unconstitutional, we have now learned that one judge disagreed with the majority.
As we reported yesterday, the three panel of judges ruled that the GOP redistricting maps were “racially gerrymandered” after ten days of hearings in El Paso. The three judges were Jeffrey Brown, David Guaderrama and Jerry E. Smith. Smith disagreed with the majority and issued a dissent opinion.
Smith did not hold back on his dissention when he started the 104-page dissent with “fasten your seatbelts…it’s going to be a bumpy night!” on Wednesday.
From left to right: Judges Jerry E. Smith, Jeffrey V. Brown and David C. Guaderrama
Smith excoriated Brown in the dissent, writing that Brown’s conduct “is the most outrageous conduct by a judge” that he has seen in his 37 years on the bench. Smith wrote that “Brown has issued a 160-page opinion without giving me [Smith] any reasonable opportunity to respond.”
According to Smith, after the ten-day hearings in El Paso ended on October 10, Brown and Guaderrama voted for the map injunction while Smith voted to deny it.
In short, Smith writes in his dissent that after the vote, they agreed that the majority would put together the opinion and that Smith would write the dissent. Smith writes that for 26 days the two judges did not speak to him about the case. He then adds that on November 5, he received a 13-page outline of the opinion “so that” he can begin preparing his dissenting opinion.
The judge then writes that on November 12 he was told that the two judges writing the opinion would issue it three days later, because of time constraints they could not wait any longer.
However, the opinion was not released until Tuesday, November 18. Smith writes in his dissent that he received draft copies of the opinion but was not given enough time to write his dissent arguing that he had attended a funeral.
Throughout the dissent, Smith wrote that the two prevailing judges were writing that they could not delay the opinion because of another case “Purcell compels” the judges to issue the opinion. The Purcell principal says that judges should not change election rules close to an election to avoid problems for election officials.
Smith’s 104-page dissent lists over a dozen examples of what Smith calls “misleading, deceptive, or false statement,” that he accuses Brown of making in the opinion.
Smith’s dissent does not reverse the order requiring Texas to use the 2021 maps. Now only the U.S. Supreme Court can do so.
Texas appealed the court ruling requiring Texas to use the 2021 maps instead of the 2025 maps. The appeal now heads to Justice Samuel Alito who hears emergency cases. Alito is empowered to act without including the rest of the Court. Alito can rule against the court’s injunction requiring Texas to use the 2021 maps bringing back the 2025 maps into play.
Which maps will be used must be decided by the December 8 deadline to file to run for a Texas congressional seat. The maps tell candidates which seat they can run for.
Like Us and Follow Us On Our Social Media!
Visited 10 times, 10 visit(s) today