In a SCOTUS first, Justice Kagan refers to "red and blue states" and implied that redistricting was a mark of "loyalty" to Trump.

Josh Blackman | 12.5.2025 2:44 PM

Much has been written about Judge Smith's dissent in the Texas redistricting case. All the usual suspects were shocked, shocked (!) that Judge Smith wrote about George Soros. But critics missed the mark. Judge Smith's point was that Texas, like California, was engaging in overtly partisan enterprises. And the groups that opposed Texas's gerrymander, much like the groups that opposed California's gerrymander, are motivated by politics. Race is only implicated because African Americans and Hispanics tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans. Judge Smith wasn't attacking liberals or conservatives. He was simply describing the state of political play, and why Texas did what it did.

Contrast Judge Smith's dissent with Justice Kagan's dissent in Abbott v. LULAC. Kagan's opinion is dripping with a different type of partisanship--scorn for those who are responsible for this mid-decade redistricting.

Part I begins:

Recall the state of the world last spring, before mid-decade, overtly partisan redistricting (in both red and blue States) became de rigueur.

I checked.........

© Reason.com