# TRUMP WAS RIGHT! Rogue Judge RIPS Texas Map Apart in Outrageous Ruling! Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swtNA3N_09s Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/swtNA3N_09s Generated: 2025-11-23T18:33:00.544+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview Judge Jerry E. Smith issued a blistering dissent against Judge Brown's ruling, arguing that Brown's opinion was riddled with misrepresentations and "judicial tinkering" that amounted to being intentionally deceptive at worst, fundamentally disagreeing with Brown's assertion that the 2025 redistricting map, which favored Republicans, should be kept as the status quo. **Key Points:** - Judge Smith dissents from Judge Brown's opinion, stating he is responsible for any delay in issuing the preliminary injunction and will highlight Brown's judicial misbehavior. - Smith criticizes Judge Brown for metaphorically 'murdering' a judicial colleague, Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, and for intentionally misleading or being willfully blind to facts. - Smith points out that Judge Brown allegedly misquoted the most significant reason for mid-decade redistricting as partisan gain, while actually omitting a crucial word in Justice Stevens' quote (0:04). - The dissent argues that Judge Brown's reasoning attempts to bootstrap the likelihood of success from factor one into showing irreparable harm with factor two, which is incorrect under the law (1:32). - Smith highlights that Judge Brown's order was replete with legal and factual error, accompanied by 'naked procedural abuse,' demanding reversal (19:40). - The dissent notes that Judge Brown claims the plaintiffs broke quorum and delayed the 2025 map passage, but Judge Smith asserts this delay was the State's fault, not the plaintiffs' (13:13). - Judge Smith concludes that Judge Brown's actions represent 'judicial tinkering' and that his opinion is 'deeply misleading quote mining at best, intentionally deceptive at worst' (18:15, 17:17). ![Screenshot at 00:03: Judge Smith begins his dissent by referencing the decision of Judge Jerry Smith, Circuit Judge, dissenting, and highlighting his intent to address Judge Brown's opinion granting a preliminary injunction.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/swtNA3N_09s/00-00-03.png) **Context:** This video features a legal commentator analyzing the dissent written by U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith in a case involving Texas redistricting. Judge Smith's dissent directly attacks the opinion written by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, who had issued a preliminary injunction regarding Texas's 2025 congressional redistricting map. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the court should maintain the status quo (the allegedly gerrymandered 2021 map) or implement the new map during an election cycle, with Judge Smith arguing Judge Brown's reasoning was fundamentally flawed and manipulative. ## Detailed Analysis The speaker analyzes Judge Jerry E. Smith's dissent, which sharply criticizes U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown's opinion granting a preliminary injunction against the Texas 2025 congressional redistricting map. Judge Smith begins his dissent by stating his responsibility for any delay and his intent to highlight Judge Brown's 'pernicious judicial misbehavior' (2:02). Smith characterizes Judge Brown's opinion as engaging in 'layers of sophistry to water down the potency of the most important, first factor' (5:05) and accuses him of intentionally misleading and being deceptively quoting mining (18:14). Specifically, Smith notes Judge Brown misrepresented a quote from Justice Stevens by omitting one word, which fundamentally changed the meaning (0:04). Smith further argues that Judge Brown incorrectly applied the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions by improperly bootstrapping the likelihood of success from factor one into factor two (1:32). The dissent argues that Judge Brown's order was 'replete with legal and factual error, accompanied by naked procedural abuse, demands reversal' (19:41). Smith refutes Judge Brown's claim that the plaintiffs caused the delay that broke quorum on passing the 2025 map, asserting the blame lies with the State for issuing an injunction and then turning around to blame the plaintiffs (13:13). The dissent concludes by noting that Judge Brown's entire opinion demonstrates a 'willful blindness unbecoming of the judiciary' (15:37) and that his actions are the 'epitome of judicial tinkering' (9:31). The final pages show the signed dissent by Judge Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Circuit Judge. ### Dissent Introduction - Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge, dissenting - Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride! - I dissent from the entirety of Judge Brown's opinion granting a preliminary injunction (2:00) ### Preliminary Statement - Speaker explains he must highlight the pernicious judicial misbehavior of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown (2:03) ### Critique of Judge Brown's Misquoting - Judge Brown allegedly misrepresented Justice Stevens' quote by omitting one word, making it seem like partisan gain was the most obvious reason for redistricting (0:04, 0:49) ### Critique of Legal Analysis - Judge Brown incorrectly uses the likelihood of success factor to bootstrap irreparable harm, and his attempt to ignore the status quo regarding the 2025 map is criticized (1:32, 11:07) ### Critique of Judge Brown's Actions - Brown is accused of judicial tinkering, misleading quotes, and intentionally deceptive behavior, especially regarding who caused the delay in passing the map (9:27, 13:34, 18:14) ### Conclusion of Dissent - The order is replete with legal/factual error and naked procedural abuse, demanding reversal; darkness descends on the Rule of Law (19:38) ![Screenshot at 00:03: Judge Smith begins his dissent by referencing the decision of Judge Jerry Smith, Circuit Judge, dissenting, and highlighting his intent to address Judge Brown's opinion granting a preliminary injunction.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/swtNA3N_09s/00-00-03.png) ![Screenshot at 0:41: The video displays the document text where Judge Smith highlights the quote criticizing Judge Brown for not even intending to grapple with Justice Stevens' relevant quote.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/swtNA3N_09s/00-00-41.png) ![Screenshot at 1:43: The document text shows the assertion that the plaintiffs must produce their own Alexander map to address their claims.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/swtNA3N_09s/00-01-43.png) ![Screenshot at 4:45: Judge Smith emphasizes the text where Judge Brown is accused of intentionally misleading and being disingenuously false with his creative formulation of the preliminary injunction standard.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/swtNA3N_09s/00-04-45.png) ![Screenshot at 19:57: The final page of the dissent is shown, concluding that darkness descends on the Rule of Law and displaying Judge Jerry E. Smith's signature.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/swtNA3N_09s/00-19-57.png)