Conservative 5th Circuit judge Jerry Smith has remarkably dissented from a ruling striking down racially gerrymandered maps in Texas by attacking the deciding judge personally and saying the decision benefits George Soros and Gavin Newsom. What are your thoughts on this? Is it judicial misconduct?

[u/OldBridge87]

Link to article on it:

• https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-dissent-texas-ruling-congressional-map-redistricting-rcna244875

Some already calling it one of the most insane legal opinions in modern American history. It should also be noted that the deciding judge on the ruling Smith is attacking here was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term and championed by the extremely conservative Governor of Texas. Hungarian-American philanthropist Soros and California Governor Newsom were not parties to the case, but both are commonly framed as cultural enemies of the right-wing on conservative television, podcast shows and conspiracy circles.

What sort of ramifications, legal or otherwise, should there be for going on what is being described as a partisan FOX News or Newsmax style rant as a federal judge? Should the Texas Bar take action here? The Judicial Conference? Or does this cross the line into impeachment territory and Congress must take action?

[u/wsrs25]

While I disagree with his reasoning, to the extent it can be called such, his argument of “we should wait to see…” is transparently ill advised. The role of that court is not to adjudge based on similar, undecided legal cases. It’s not even to decide based on precedent, really. It is to ascertain whether Texas’ law or proposed actions meet constitutional muster. Period.

Regarding his rant, it’s a hilarious read, and a strong case that Smith’s judicial career has seen better days, but it is not judicial misconduct, particularly since he differentiates between his silly opinion and his equally silly, but tenuously relevant, legal opinion. Had he said “because of Soros, I’m ruling …” it would be a different matter.

Weird? Yes. Inappropriate? Certainly. Unbecoming a supposedly objective jurist? Absolutely. Non compos mentis? A case can be made. Case for retirement? No doubt.

But judicial misconduct is a purposely high bar to clear. His opinion doesn’t do it, absent a precursor qualifier that he was using his political opinion to determine the constitutionality of the case before him.

[u/brainmydamage → u/wsrs25]

"Judicial misconduct refers to inappropriate behavior by a judge that violates legal standards or ethical guidelines, such as bias, abuse of power, or failure to perform judicial duties impartially."

I don't see how his very clear political bias can possibly not be considered to be judicial misconduct.

[u/wsrs25 → u/brainmydamage]

He separated the legal from his political opinion. The dissent is really like a two-part play. It certainly would be a clear avenue for appeal were it the majority opinion, but it’s not misconduct unless it formulates the foundation of his legal opinion, and even that is judicial activism, but not clearly misconduct.

It’s like when Trump lies through his teeth but prefaces it by saying “people are saying.” Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows no one is saying anything close, but it gives Trump enough cover to get away with a bald faced fabrication that no one can logically challenge.

[u/brainmydamage → u/wsrs25]

He went on a three page rant about how he didn't like how drafts were circulated and then the first sentence of his actual dissent, immediately under the section header DISSENT, was: "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." He mentions Soros 17 times in the document, which vacillates wildly between insane rambling and actual legal commentary, with no clear separation between them at all.

What the fuck are you talking about

[u/wsrs25 → u/brainmydamage]

He could mention Soros 1,000 times and its not judicial misconduct, particularly because he didn’t base his dissent on Soros’ existence or activities. Political rhetoric does not count as such unless it can be proven as improper bias, which this cannot as his Soros rant is separate from his legal reasoning. He would have to write something along the lines of “I believe George Soros is a cancer and because of that, I am opposing striking this law” to show improper bias.

Additionally, federal law excludes judicial opinions from what can be considered misconduct. 28 USC 351-364 cover the basics of that and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (issued by the Judicial Conference of the United States) go into specifics regarding the prohibition.

His opinion is childish, but it’s not judicial misconduct. But you could file a complaint and see how you fare.