My very strange week

November 21, 2025

In my 30 years as a lawyer, I have had a lot of strange weeks. But this one was among the weirdest.

On Monday, a federal court blocked Texas’ new congressional map. The opinion, authored by a judge appointed by Donald Trump, concluded that the Trump-approved map enacted this summer by the Texas Legislature was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

My law firm litigated the case. Democracy Docket covered the 10-day hearing from start to finish. I was very familiar with the constitutional infirmities of the Texas map. I had been writing for weeks that I thought there was a good chance the court would rule as it did. Yet few listened.

Then, suddenly, on Monday, the entire legacy media woke up and realized that Trump’s gambit to rig the maps for 2026 might have collapsed into a spectacular failure. My phone started ringing. Reporters wanted to interview me and get my reaction. My advice: Read Democracy Docket.

Yet that was not what made this week so weird.

On Tuesday, my attention briefly turned to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral argument was taking place in a case brought by Donald Trump against me and more than a dozen others. In 2022, Trump filed a RICO case against several of us who had been involved in the Clinton campaign — including Hillary Clinton — and others who had no connection to it.

In a sprawling and unhinged complaint, Trump attempted to turn false conspiracy theories into facts and twist jury acquittals into damning proof of guilt. None of us who were sued settled. I never contemplated doing so — and I doubt any of the others did either. Instead, we fought the lawsuit and won. That victory was the subject of the appeal in the 11^th Circuit.

When the argument concluded, I was pleased with how it went. However, I couldn’t help but shake my head at the fact that corporations with billions of dollars and law firms with thousands of lawyers were unwilling to do what we had done in this case — stand up to a bully and kick his ass.

What made the week truly odd, however, took place on Wednesday afternoon.

I have been spending a good deal of time this week preparing for my next Supreme Court argument on Dec. 9. As I sat in a conference room with several of the other lawyers on the case, one of them interrupted to say that a judge in the Texas redistricting case had published his dissenting opinion.

I knew the decision was 2–1. The majority opinion was strong, and Texas has already said it would appeal the case to the Supreme Court. I had not paid much attention to the fact that we had not yet seen the dissent.

The lawyer who interrupted said I would want to read the new opinion because it was unhinged and mentioned me and the firm by name. He was right on both counts.

The dissent is best described as a screed — angry, disjointed, repetitive and filled with serious and personal accusations against the judge who authored the majority opinion. But what struck me most was that it mentions George Soros 17 times. In fact, Soros is cast as a main character in a case that, as far as I know, he had nothing to do with.

George Soros was not a plaintiff in the case. He does not live in Texas. I have not seen any reporting to suggest that Soros even has a view on the Texas map.

Yet, the opinion proclaims Soros, along with Gavin Newsom, the “main winners” of the case. According to the dissent, Soros achieved “a victory at the expense of the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.”

As for me, I appear in a strongly conspiratorial portion of the opinion connected to — yes — George Soros:

“The Elias Law Group draws from the Soros coffers, too. Counsel for the instant Gonzales plaintiffs, David Fox, is a partner at Elias, which ‘has collected more than $104 million’ from Democratic Party committees and donors, including Mr. Soros. Firm Chair Marc Elias formed entities ‘tucked inside large existing nonprofits’ that ‘raised tens of millions of dollars from some of the richest donors on the left—including from foundations funded by Mr. Soros.’”

For the record: my firm’s clients in this case were 13 Black and Latino citizens of Texas whose constitutional rights were violated by Texas’ redistricting.

My law firm does work for the Democratic Party — quite a bit, in fact. That is all public. Indeed, in the Supreme Court case I am preparing for, I represent the national Democratic Party. In the GOP lawsuit to block California’s new map, my firm represents the Democratic Party. In both cases, it is right there in the caption.

But we also represent voters, voting rights organizations, and nonprofit groups. All of that is public as well. Attacking George Soros and insinuating that my legal team was doing anything other than representing our clients is bizarre and wrong.

As I said, this has been a very strange week. It featured the best in our judicial system and the worst. We saw Trump attempt to intimidate his political opponents through baseless lawsuits, only to have them stand up to him. We witnessed a judge appointed by Trump rule without fear or favor. We saw another judge resort to petty attacks.

I am just glad the week is almost over. I have a lot more work to do before I show up at the Supreme Court on Dec. 9!