David Lat delivers a rare, unvarnished look at the human friction within the federal judiciary, moving beyond dry legal analysis to expose a courtroom drama where judicial decorum has all but collapsed. While the piece touches on significant antitrust outcomes, its most startling contribution is the detailed account of a federal judge issuing a 104-page dissent that reads less like a legal brief and more like a personal vendetta, challenging the very norms of the deliberative process.
The Antitrust Verdict and the Hollowed-Out Watchdog
Lat begins by highlighting a seismic shift in the regulatory landscape: the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission's case against Meta. He notes that Chief Judge James Boasberg's 89-page opinion concluded that the tech giant holds no monopoly in social media, a ruling he describes as "a major win to the $1.51 trillion company" and "a blow to the government's efforts to rein in the power of tech giants." The author meticulously credits the legal teams from Kellogg Hansen and Davis Polk, framing the victory as a triumph of coordinated litigation strategy.
This outcome underscores a broader trend where the executive branch's regulatory apparatus is facing unprecedented hurdles. Lat points out that the FTC is now reduced to just two Republican commissioners following the departure of Melissa Holyoak, a development that effectively paralyzes the agency's ability to act as a counterweight to corporate consolidation. As Lat observes, the agency is now "down to two members," a structural weakness that arguably contributed to the loss in court.
Critics might argue that the focus on the legal team's prowess overshadows the substantive policy failure, but Lat's framing suggests the legal strategy was the decisive factor in a case where the government's theory of harm simply didn't hold up under judicial scrutiny.
"The ruling represents a major win to the $1.51 trillion company and a blow to the government's efforts to rein in the power of tech giants."
The Dissent Heard Around the World
The core of Lat's commentary shifts to a procedural explosion in Texas, where a three-judge district court blocked a new congressional map. The narrative focuses on Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, whose reaction to the majority's decision was anything but standard. Lat writes that Smith filed a "vigorous, vociferous, 104-page dissent" that raised "plenty of eyebrows" and generated coverage ranging from "Nobel prize for fiction" to accusations of "judicial misbehavior."
Lat does not shy away from the sheer volume of the judge's anger. He quotes Smith's opening line, which borrows from the film All About Eve: "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night." The author then details how Smith accused his colleagues of "pernicious judicial misbehavior" for issuing a 160-page opinion without waiting for the dissent to be filed. Smith's dissent, Lat notes, claims that "any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith, or trust by these two judges is gone."
This section is particularly compelling because Lat dissects the tension between the Purcell principle—which warns against changing election rules close to an election—and the basic norms of collegiality. Lat argues that while the majority took 40 days to write their opinion, Smith only needed a day or two for his dissent. He posits, "Would it have killed Judge Brown... to have called Judge Smith up on the phone to ask how quickly he could put together his dissent?" This question cuts to the heart of the issue: was the rush to judgment a legal necessity or a procedural slight?
"Darkness descends on the Rule of Law. A bumpy night, indeed."
Lat's analysis here is sharp; he acknowledges the severity of the procedural breach while questioning whether the majority's haste was truly justified by the election calendar. The dissent's tone, described by Lat as "excessively harsh and over-the-top," risks undermining the very legal arguments it seeks to advance. As Lat puts it, "If these judges were so sure of their result, they would not have been so unfairly eager to issue the opinion sans my dissent."
The Erosion of Judicial Civility
Beyond the Texas redistricting saga, Lat weaves in smaller but telling anecdotes about the state of the bench. He recounts how Chief Judge William Pryor sent a meme poking fun at a colleague during a speech, and how Judge Matthew Thornhill resigned after an "Elvis obsession" spilled over into inappropriate courtroom behavior. These stories serve as a backdrop to the main event, illustrating a judiciary that is increasingly prone to personalization and a lack of restraint.
Lat also touches on the political polarization of judicial nominations, noting that the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced four nominees along strict party lines, with the exception of one acting U.S. Attorney. This context reinforces the idea that the courts are becoming another theater for political warfare, where the personal and the professional are inextricably linked.
"If the two judges on this panel get away with what they have done, it sets a horrendous precedent that 'might makes right' and the end justifies the means."
A counterargument worth considering is that the Purcell principle is so rigid that any delay could indeed disenfranchise voters, potentially justifying the majority's decision to move forward without the dissent. However, Lat's point remains that the majority's 40-day delay prior to the ruling makes the subsequent rush to judgment seem less like a legal imperative and more like a power play.
Bottom Line
David Lat's commentary succeeds in transforming a dry procedural dispute into a gripping narrative about the fragility of judicial norms. The strongest part of his argument is the juxtaposition of the Purcell principle's strict timeline against the reality of a 40-day deliberation, exposing the hypocrisy of the majority's haste. The piece's biggest vulnerability lies in its reliance on the tone of the dissent as a proxy for its legal merit; while Smith's anger is palpable, the substantive legal arguments regarding the redistricting map deserve equal weight. Readers should watch to see if this breach of protocol becomes the new normal in an increasingly polarized judiciary, or if the courts will self-correct before the rule of law suffers irreversible damage.