Advisory Opinions — The Dissent Heard Around the World
The Dispatch | Hosts: Sarah Isgur (A) and David French (B) | Nov 20, 2025

Episode Overview

In this gripping episode, Sarah and David dissect two explosive legal controversies: 1) the unprecedented mid-cycle Texas redistricting battle and its fallout, including a stunning, highly personal dissent by a prominent federal judge, and 2) the apparent meltdown of the Department of Justice’s case against James Comey due to extraordinary procedural errors during his indictment process. True to format, the episode blends substantive legal analysis, judicial drama, and behind-the-scenes process, with ample attention to the ongoing collision between law and politics.

I. The Texas Mid-Cycle Redistricting Ruling (03:54–46:36)

Context and Background

• Texas Redistricting, Unprecedented Move: Typically, states redistrict following the decennial census, but Texas initiated a mid-cycle redistricting in 2025, spurred by pressure from the newly returned Trump administration. Other states (notably California) retaliated with their own mid-cycle moves, creating nationwide upheaval.
• Relevant Legal Framework:
  • Three-Judge Panel: Redistricting cases go straight from a special three-judge district panel to the Supreme Court—bypassing normal appellate certiorari. (07:12)
  • Purcell Principle: Federal courts shouldn’t alter election laws shortly before elections. (10:08)
  • Gerrymandering Law: Partisan gerrymandering is legal; racial gerrymandering is not. Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Rucho) leaves partisan gerrymanders untouched, but racial gerrymanders remain fair game for lawsuits.

The Case and Its Characters

• Judge Jeff Brown's Majority: Trump appointee, Texas legal mainstay, issues a 2–1 decision striking down the newly drawn districts as unlawful racial gerrymanders prompted by DOJ pressure.
• The DOJ Letter: DOJ (Harmony Dhillon, Assistant AG for Civil Rights) sent Texas a letter insisting on redistricting due to supposedly illegal “coalition” districts (districts with multiple minority groups forming a majority).
  • The law was clear: the Fifth Circuit (Pettaway case) previously ruled coalition districts can’t support a Section 2 Voting Rights Act claim. (10:04)
• Explosive Evidence: Instead of arguing maps were drawn for partisan advantage (which is legal), Texas and DOJ left a trail of statements conceding race as the motivation—giving challengers a powerful case.

Notable Quotes & Key Moments

• DOJ Error Highlighted: “...even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General... describe the DOJ letter as, quote, ‘legally unsound, baseless, erroneous, ham fisted, and a mess.’” — David French quoting the opinion (16:55)
• Majority’s Critique: The DOJ, through its letter, “took a slam dunk victory and created a possible defeat”—potentially costing Republicans the House. (18:04)
• Analogy to Alabama/Louisiana Cases: “...imagine Calais if Louisiana was like, ‘yeah, we want less black representation’... that’s a different case.” (18:04)

The Unprecedented Dissent (21:20–45:37)

• Judge Jerry Smith (5th Cir.)’s Dissent: Released a day after the majority, Smith’s dissent is a scathing, deeply personal attack on Judge Brown’s process and character—calling it the “most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.” (21:25)
• Procedural Drama:
  • Smith claims he wasn’t given an opportunity to draft a proper dissent, accuses Brown of railroading the timing to exclude him.
  • Personal attacks abound: calls Brown’s opinion “a Nobel Prize for fiction” and “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.” (28:26)
  • Accuses majority and parties of being controlled by “George Soros and Gavin Newsom,” suggesting legal activism and funding conspiracies. (28:25–32:52)
• Tone & Rhetoric Critiqued:
  • French: “It was a temper tantrum that was remarkable... The personal insults, the taking him on... reprehensible.” (33:00–36:21)
  • Isgur: “This reads like it was written in anger…this feels like it could have benefited from an undo send.” (37:16)
  • Both note the dissent’s substance—i.e., that the case could be legitimately reversed—was undermined by its vitriolic, conspiratorial language.

Institutional & Cultural Observations

• Pressure on Institutions: (38:51–44:02)
  • French: “Pressure bursts pipes. …We're seeing people crack in this environment.” Warns against radicalization and institutional breakdown due to relentless speed and politicization.
  • Isgur: The present system is “slowing down change” for a reason, but the rush for quick, high-stakes outcomes has endangered that.
• Meta-Analysis: Both hosts underscore how judicial decorum is threatened by these pressures, and fear the Supreme Court is now backed into a corner by the public nature of the dissent.

Outcome and Predictions

• What Comes Next: (44:02–46:36)
  • The Supreme Court must weigh in—no discretion due to the three-judge process.
  • Isgur predicts SCOTUS may uphold the mid-cycle 2025 maps for the 2026 election, but “this fight that has now become very public has made their job much harder.”
  • French: The Supreme Court doesn't want to endorse the kind of rhetoric in Smith’s dissent.

II. The DOJ’s Indictment Meltdown in the Comey Case (49:12–75:01)

Case Set-Up

• Comey Indictment: DOJ brought criminal charges against former FBI director James Comey under intense pressure from the Trump administration, barely beating the statute of limitations, and with apparent last-minute chaos.
• Key Judicial Actors: Magistrate Judge issues a damning order; district judge focused on dismissal for indictorial misconduct.
• Four “Buckets” of DOJ Error: (51:49–75:01)

The Four Buckets of Disaster

1. Expired/Overbroad Search Warrant

   • Searched Comey associate’s (Daniel Richmond) phone years after the warrant was issued, long after expiration, and well outside original scope. (54:57)
   • French and Isgur debate if Comey has standing to challenge this as he didn’t own the device.
   • But this blunder sets frighteningly bad precedent.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege Violations

   • DOJ failed to properly filter privileged attorney-client material, egregiously allowing evidence to taint grand jury proceedings. (58:08)
   • No filter team was deployed relevant to Comey—required by local precedent—despite agents clearly flagging potential violations.
   • Isgur: “This...is Comey’s strongest 6e argument”—defense needs transcripts to see how much damage was done. (62:33)

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct Before Grand Jury

   • Prosecutor misstates Comey’s Fifth Amendment right, tells jury burden is on Comey to explain himself—a serious constitutional error. (63:33–69:37)
     • “If Mr. Comey wants to say he didn’t do this, he can tell the jury… It’s up to him to explain himself.” — Summarizing the prosecutor’s apparent misstatement.
   • Also misleadingly suggests government has “more and better evidence” not presented, undermining the grand jury’s independence.
   • French: “This is...elementary and so basic...the government bears...the burden of proof...this is pretty remarkable.” (66:22)
   • Isgur: “It’s almost like the person presenting to the grand jury has never done criminal law before.” (69:29)

4. A Facially Invalid Indictment

   • DOJ swapped out an indictment after grand jury declined some charges, to avoid bad press, and allegedly never presented the revised indictment to the full grand jury.
   • The only two approved charges were not technically voted on in the final, official indictment—meaning the indictment is likely void on its face (no harmless error allowed).
   • “...the indictment has to be the one voted on by the grand jury. It appears that is not what happened. Therefore, this indictment isn't valid on its face.” — Isgur (70:48)

Notable Quotes & Commentary

• French: “If in my practice I had done any of this, it would have been immediately fatal to my employment.” (50:49)
• On bucket three/four: “Directly chipping at that indictment...this isn’t corner cutting...this is just, hey grand jury, I’m completely misleading you about the law.” (66:22)

Outlook & Takeaways

• The district judge is now intensely focused on the facial validity (or lack thereof) of the indictment.
• “If bucket number four proves correct, this whole thing is gone.” (71:51)
• Both hosts marvel at the collapse: “Meltdown...never seen anything like this.”

III. Listener Mailbag – Historical Counterfactuals (75:01–81:21)

Tory or Patriot?

• Engaging with listener questions: When discussing Civil War loyalties in the South, Isgur and French note the limits and complexities of “what side would you have been on” — especially for women and minorities, or those with non-traditional ancestries.
  • French: “If you take everything about my life and just transport it back...I would have been born a white dude in deep South Alabama...” (77:12)
  • Isgur highlights: Most “Tory/Patriot” analysis ignores that the question doesn’t apply to everyone the same way; demography and historical context matter.

Entertaining History Factoids:

• 25% of Hessian mercenaries stayed in America after the Revolution. (80:42)

IV. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Quote | Speaker | |-----------|-------|---------| | 16:55 | “...even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General... describe the DOJ letter as, quote, ‘legally unsound, baseless, erroneous, ham fisted, and a mess.’” | David French quoting majority opinion | | 21:25 | “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.” | Judge Jerry Smith, quoted by Sarah | | 28:26 | “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. I dissent...” | Judge Jerry Smith, quoted | | 33:00 | “The personal insults, the taking him on... reprehensible.” | David French | | 69:29 | “It’s almost like the person presenting to the grand jury has never done criminal law before. David. Almost.” | Sarah Isgur |

V. Timestamps for Major Segments

• Intro / Commitment to Podcast: 03:04
• Texas Redistricting Background & Legal Framework: 05:54
• Analysis of DOJ’s Role and Judicial Reasoning: 14:15
• Dissent and Judicial Dramatics: 21:20
• Meta-Institutional Analysis: 38:51
• Supreme Court Outlook: 44:02
• DOJ/Comey Indictment Disaster - Buckets 1–4: 49:12–75:01
• Listener Interactions & Historical Mailbag: 75:01–81:21

VI. Tone & Language

The hosts’ tone is frank, conversational, and at times incredulous—especially when highlighting judicial missteps, prosecutorial blunders, and institutional stress. There is a clear, often wry assessment of the political context behind legal decisions, with sharp critiques of both legal process and personal conduct by major legal actors. Personal anecdotes, pop-culture references, and moments of levity (e.g., the “dinkus” digression, Hessian trivia) balance the weight of the subject matter.

VII. Conclusion

This episode offers an epic case study in “the law’s collision with politics,” featuring both the rare spectacle of judicial meltdown and the unraveling of a high-stakes prosecution through sheer procedural incompetence. For those hungry for insight into legal process under pressure, and for the unpredictable ways politics and personality can warp institutions, this is one not to miss.