{"id":137248,"date":"2025-11-21T07:12:50","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T15:12:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/21\/judge-jerry-smiths-soros-fueled-tantrum-is-the-wildest-thing-youll-read-this-week\/"},"modified":"2025-11-21T07:12:50","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T15:12:50","slug":"judge-jerry-smiths-soros-fueled-tantrum-is-the-wildest-thing-youll-read-this-week","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/21\/judge-jerry-smiths-soros-fueled-tantrum-is-the-wildest-thing-youll-read-this-week\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Jerry Smith\u2019s Soros-Fueled Tantrum Is The Wildest Thing You\u2019ll Read This Week"},"content":{"rendered":"

Judge Jerry Smith has a flare for off-the-hook opinions. He once dissented by writing a fake majority opinion<\/a> \u2014 styled to look like a majority opinion \u2014 that he claimed the majority should have<\/em> written. Good luck to the AI bots scraping that one and trying to figure out what the law actually is! He also spit hot fire for 50-some-odd pages against conservative colleagues second-guessing an airline\u2019s vaccine policy<\/a>, dragging the majority\u2019s attempt to graft a culture war exception on the concept of at-will employment. <\/p>\n

Right or wrong, Judge Smith carries terminal \u201cmain character syndrome\u201d into everything he does. <\/p>\n

And he has not disappointed with his 104-page dissent<\/a> in the Texas redistricting case. Arriving a little later than the majority opinion putting a block on the new Texas maps, Judge Smith warns us to buckle in<\/p>\n

Smith opens with a \u201cPreliminary Statement,\u201d fixing his ire on Trump-appointed Judge Jeffrey Brown, a deeply conservative former Texas Supreme Court justice:<\/p>\n

\n

I append this Preliminary Statement to dispel any suspicion that I\u2019m responsible for any delay in issuing the preliminary injunction or that I am or saw slow-walking the ruling. I also need to highlight the pernicious judicial misbehavior of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The next several pages only succeed in painting Judge Brown as entirely reasonable. If anything, Judge Brown is bending over backward for a dissenting judge who wants to dawdle in the face of Purcell<\/em>\u2018s ticking time bomb. The majority provided Judge Smith with an outline 13 days before publishing the majority opinion, and a draft five days before. A tight timeline, but not an absurd one for a case of national import. Judge Brown even informed Judge Smith that the majority would note that a dissenting opinion would be forthcoming \u2014 allowing the parties to begin the inevitable appeals process as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n

\n

This outrage speaks for itself. Any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith, or trust by these two judges is gone. If these judges were so sure of their result, they would not have been so unfairly eager to issue the opinion sans my dissent, or they could have waited for the dissent in order to join issue with it. What indeed are they afraid of?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Purcell<\/em>. They were afraid of violating Purcell<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Under the Purcell<\/em> principle, courts are admonished not to settle election law issues sufficiently prior to an election to avoid confusing voters or otherwise influencing the outcome. The deadline to file to run for the offices implicated by the Texas redistricting plan is December 8. <\/p>\n

Judge Smith includes a joke in the opinion about district judges thinking they\u2019re gods, in a true \u201cevery accusation is an admission\u201d moment. His dissent is strictly gratuitous. Beyond personal ego, it serves no purpose in the resolution of the case. If Judge Smith thinks this decision is so bad, he should want to see the appeals process begin swiftly. <\/p>\n

But\u2026 if someone slow-walked the process enough, maybe the 2026 election could be ordered to follow these maps, even if they\u2019re ultimately determined to be illegal. <\/p>\n

Not that Smith would have any political motivations\u2026<\/p>\n

\n

The main winners from Judge Brown\u2019s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s the first line of the dissent proper, and George Soros will be mentioned a total of 17 times in this case that has nothing to do with George Soros. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

My \u201cmy 17 references to George Soros aren\u2019t political\u201d footnote is raising a lot of questions answered by my footnote.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)<\/a> 2025-11-19T22:37:21.161Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The oral history of this footnote would make for some entertainment. This is pure speculation, but this feels like a note born of some clerk saying \u201chey Judge, you keep mentioning George Soros for no reason. Kind of makes you seem like a crank peddling antisemitic conspiracy theories<\/a>. Maybe you want to just drop all these references\u201d and Smith going \u201cno, I\u2019ll go one better!\u201d and composing this footnote.<\/p>\n

He continues by charting connections that lawyers and experts in the case have had with other Soros initiatives in a real six-degrees-of-the-Elders-of-Zion way. For example, Judge Smith writes of one expert witness, \u201cMatt Barreto, whose testimony is so problematic that it is unusable.\u201d Smith has no response to Barreto, but instead launches a footnote that begins \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 top expert Matt Barreto is a Soros operative.\u201d <\/p>\n

Pepe Silvia all the way down.<\/p>\n

\n

Judge Brown could have saved himself and the readers a lot of time and effort by merely stating the following:<\/p>\n

I just don\u2019t like what the Legislature did here. It was unnecessary, and it seems unfair to disadvantaged voters. I need to step in to make sure wiser heads prevail over the nakedly partisan and racially questionable actions of these zealous lawmakers. Just as I did to the lawmakers in Galveston County in Petteway, I\u2019m using my considerable clout as a federal district judge to put a stop to bad policy judgments. After all, I get paid to do what I think is right.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ideally, you don\u2019t want your fake straw argument to be objectively accurate.<\/p>\n

The \u201cunfair to disadvantaged voters\u201d part is kinda the whole point of the Voting Rights Act. For most of the opinion, Smith tries to characterize the case as purely partisan redistricting \u2014 which is constitutional \u2014 as opposed to discriminating against historically disadvantaged groups, which is, at least technically, not. But here he gives up the game, unable to resist blasting Judge Brown for the audacity of applying the law as written.<\/p>\n

And, in Smith\u2019s defense, the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court have certainly expressed hostility to the law as written. Judge Brown just seems to be more of a committed textualist.<\/p>\n

Substantively, the dissent constantly repeats generic maxims as talismans against the specific facts.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most obvious reason for mid-cycle redistricting, of course, is partisan gain,\u201d<\/strong> the dissent repeats, citing the obvious \u2014 no one tries to redistrict to their partisan detriment \u2014 without addressing the relevant legal question of whether or not that the legislature got those partisan gains through racial discrimination. Not to get all \u201cbasic LSAT prep\u201d on the judge, but having a partisan goal doesn\u2019t establish that the gerrymander is purely partisan.<\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he presumption of legislative good faith,\u201d<\/strong> carries oceans of water for Smith as he brushes off explicit statements about the racial distribution of the new maps from their legislative architects. But it\u2019s not an irrefutable presumption. Just because a legislature is presumed to act in good faith, the facts of this case are that Texas didn\u2019t want to redistrict and only agreed to do so after a Justice Department official explicitly told them to break up minority-majority districts<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\u201c[C]ourts must be careful not to \u2018overemphasiz[e] statements from individual legislators,’\u201d<\/strong> he warns in an effort to ward off the majority considering any statements from individual legislators. At one point, Judge Smith writes, \u201cJudge Brown is an unskilled magician. The audience knows what is coming next.\u201d But it\u2019s Smith who keeps demanding the audience ignore what\u2019s going on behind the curtain.<\/p>\n

The magician crack is one of several random acts of snarkery strewn throughout the opinion. \u201cIf this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an \u2018F’\u201d and \u201cConfused yet? You can thank Judge Brown for that.\u201d Judge Smith, a Reagan-appointee, also repeatedly \u2014 and without noting it \u2014 invokes Reagan\u2019s 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, playing both roles at various points. We certainly appreciate biting commentary and referential humor, but it\u2019s not a substitute for substance. Smith\u2019s only semblance of that stems from his lengthy recitation of the GOP mapmaker\u2019s account of the process. Evidence to the contrary gets waved off, often with \u201csomething something George Soros.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then, returning to Purcell<\/em>, Judge Smith offers the most galaxy-brained take of all: if the legislature isn\u2019t allowed to racially gerrymander, then there can\u2019t be elections at all!<\/p>\n

\n

A federal court cannot reinstate a statute that the legislature has explicitly repealed and voided. That move presents grave federalism concerns, commandeers the state legislature, departs from the standard remedial process in voting rights cases, and intrudes into the \u2018sensitive area of state legislative redistricting.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Quite the hack! His argument is that, given the 2025 redistricting bill explicitly repealed the prior 2021 maps, any opinion invalidating the 2025 maps cannot return the parties to the old maps, leaving Texas with no maps at all for the rapidly upcoming election. So all a legislature would need to do to impose an illegal map is explicitly repeal the last one and engage the courts in a murder-suicide pact? That\u2019s a special kind of stupid.<\/p>\n

And then it gets worse:<\/p>\n

\n

Also, Judge Brown\u2019s chosen remedy engenders an interesting contradiction: The plaintiffs have insisted, for years, that the 2021 maps are themselves racist and unconstitutional. While Judge Brown\u2019s opinion [is \u2014 sic] exactly what they asked for, it is manifestly absurd for them to mandate an unconstitutional set of 2021 maps!<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Democrats thought the old maps were racist\u2026 so how can they complain just because these maps are more racist? OK, I\u2019m starting to understand why Smith thought he needed a lot more time to think through this opinion before committing it to paper.<\/p>\n

\n

The opinion raises the specter of the legislature\u2019s being incentivized to redistrict \u201cas close to elections as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is, apparently, not meant ironically. His argument is that if courts can halt last-minute election interference it just means legislators engage in last-last-minute interference. Probably true, but is like saying, \u201cif we prosecute murderers, they\u2019ll be incentivized to try to hide their crimes.\u201d <\/p>\n

Smith kicked off his dissent promising a bumpy night, so you can\u2019t accuse him of failing to pay off on his headline. But like Margo Channing in All About Eve<\/em>, it\u2019s hard to separate this opinion from an aging star desperately clinging to the spotlight.<\/p>\n

(Check out the whole opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Judge Jerry Smith\u2019s Soros-Fueled Tantrum Is The Wildest Thing You\u2019ll Read This Week<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Judge Jerry Smith has a flare for off-the-hook opinions. He once dissented by writing a fake majority opinion<\/a> \u2014 styled to look like a majority opinion \u2014 that he claimed the majority should have<\/em> written. Good luck to the AI bots scraping that one and trying to figure out what the law actually is! He also spit hot fire for 50-some-odd pages against conservative colleagues second-guessing an airline\u2019s vaccine policy<\/a>, dragging the majority\u2019s attempt to graft a culture war exception on the concept of at-will employment. <\/p>\n

Right or wrong, Judge Smith carries terminal \u201cmain character syndrome\u201d into everything he does. <\/p>\n

And he has not disappointed with his 104-page dissent<\/a> in the Texas redistricting case. Arriving a little later than the majority opinion putting a block on the new Texas maps, Judge Smith warns us to buckle in<\/p>\n

Smith opens with a \u201cPreliminary Statement,\u201d fixing his ire on Trump-appointed Judge Jeffrey Brown, a deeply conservative former Texas Supreme Court justice:<\/p>\n

\n

I append this Preliminary Statement to dispel any suspicion that I\u2019m responsible for any delay in issuing the preliminary injunction or that I am or saw slow-walking the ruling. I also need to highlight the pernicious judicial misbehavior of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The next several pages only succeed in painting Judge Brown as entirely reasonable. If anything, Judge Brown is bending over backward for a dissenting judge who wants to dawdle in the face of Purcell<\/em>\u2018s ticking time bomb. The majority provided Judge Smith with an outline 13 days before publishing the majority opinion, and a draft five days before. A tight timeline, but not an absurd one for a case of national import. Judge Brown even informed Judge Smith that the majority would note that a dissenting opinion would be forthcoming \u2014 allowing the parties to begin the inevitable appeals process as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n

\n

This outrage speaks for itself. Any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith, or trust by these two judges is gone. If these judges were so sure of their result, they would not have been so unfairly eager to issue the opinion sans my dissent, or they could have waited for the dissent in order to join issue with it. What indeed are they afraid of?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Purcell<\/em>. They were afraid of violating Purcell<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Under the Purcell<\/em> principle, courts are admonished not to settle election law issues sufficiently prior to an election to avoid confusing voters or otherwise influencing the outcome. The deadline to file to run for the offices implicated by the Texas redistricting plan is December 8. <\/p>\n

Judge Smith includes a joke in the opinion about district judges thinking they\u2019re gods, in a true \u201cevery accusation is an admission\u201d moment. His dissent is strictly gratuitous. Beyond personal ego, it serves no purpose in the resolution of the case. If Judge Smith thinks this decision is so bad, he should want to see the appeals process begin swiftly. <\/p>\n

But\u2026 if someone slow-walked the process enough, maybe the 2026 election could be ordered to follow these maps, even if they\u2019re ultimately determined to be illegal. <\/p>\n

Not that Smith would have any political motivations\u2026<\/p>\n

\n

The main winners from Judge Brown\u2019s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s the first line of the dissent proper, and George Soros will be mentioned a total of 17 times in this case that has nothing to do with George Soros. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

My \u201cmy 17 references to George Soros aren\u2019t political\u201d footnote is raising a lot of questions answered by my footnote.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)<\/a> 2025-11-19T22:37:21.161Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The oral history of this footnote would make for some entertainment. This is pure speculation, but this feels like a note born of some clerk saying \u201chey Judge, you keep mentioning George Soros for no reason. Kind of makes you seem like a crank peddling antisemitic conspiracy theories<\/a>. Maybe you want to just drop all these references\u201d and Smith going \u201cno, I\u2019ll go one better!\u201d and composing this footnote.<\/p>\n

He continues by charting connections that lawyers and experts in the case have had with other Soros initiatives in a real six-degrees-of-the-Elders-of-Zion way. For example, Judge Smith writes of one expert witness, \u201cMatt Barreto, whose testimony is so problematic that it is unusable.\u201d Smith has no response to Barreto, but instead launches a footnote that begins \u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 top expert Matt Barreto is a Soros operative.\u201d <\/p>\n

Pepe Silvia all the way down.<\/p>\n

\n

Judge Brown could have saved himself and the readers a lot of time and effort by merely stating the following:<\/p>\n

I just don\u2019t like what the Legislature did here. It was unnecessary, and it seems unfair to disadvantaged voters. I need to step in to make sure wiser heads prevail over the nakedly partisan and racially questionable actions of these zealous lawmakers. Just as I did to the lawmakers in Galveston County in Petteway, I\u2019m using my considerable clout as a federal district judge to put a stop to bad policy judgments. After all, I get paid to do what I think is right.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ideally, you don\u2019t want your fake straw argument to be objectively accurate.<\/p>\n

The \u201cunfair to disadvantaged voters\u201d part is kinda the whole point of the Voting Rights Act. For most of the opinion, Smith tries to characterize the case as purely partisan redistricting \u2014 which is constitutional \u2014 as opposed to discriminating against historically disadvantaged groups, which is, at least technically, not. But here he gives up the game, unable to resist blasting Judge Brown for the audacity of applying the law as written.<\/p>\n

And, in Smith\u2019s defense, the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court have certainly expressed hostility to the law as written. Judge Brown just seems to be more of a committed textualist.<\/p>\n

Substantively, the dissent constantly repeats generic maxims as talismans against the specific facts.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most obvious reason for mid-cycle redistricting, of course, is partisan gain,\u201d<\/strong> the dissent repeats, citing the obvious \u2014 no one tries to redistrict to their partisan detriment \u2014 without addressing the relevant legal question of whether or not that the legislature got those partisan gains through racial discrimination. Not to get all \u201cbasic LSAT prep\u201d on the judge, but having a partisan goal doesn\u2019t establish that the gerrymander is purely partisan.<\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he presumption of legislative good faith,\u201d<\/strong> carries oceans of water for Smith as he brushes off explicit statements about the racial distribution of the new maps from their legislative architects. But it\u2019s not an irrefutable presumption. Just because a legislature is presumed to act in good faith, the facts of this case are that Texas didn\u2019t want to redistrict and only agreed to do so after a Justice Department official explicitly told them to break up minority-majority districts<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\u201c[C]ourts must be careful not to \u2018overemphasiz[e] statements from individual legislators,’\u201d<\/strong> he warns in an effort to ward off the majority considering any statements from individual legislators. At one point, Judge Smith writes, \u201cJudge Brown is an unskilled magician. The audience knows what is coming next.\u201d But it\u2019s Smith who keeps demanding the audience ignore what\u2019s going on behind the curtain.<\/p>\n

The magician crack is one of several random acts of snarkery strewn throughout the opinion. \u201cIf this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an \u2018F’\u201d and \u201cConfused yet? You can thank Judge Brown for that.\u201d Judge Smith, a Reagan-appointee, also repeatedly \u2014 and without noting it \u2014 invokes Reagan\u2019s 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, playing both roles at various points. We certainly appreciate biting commentary and referential humor, but it\u2019s not a substitute for substance. Smith\u2019s only semblance of that stems from his lengthy recitation of the GOP mapmaker\u2019s account of the process. Evidence to the contrary gets waved off, often with \u201csomething something George Soros.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then, returning to Purcell<\/em>, Judge Smith offers the most galaxy-brained take of all: if the legislature isn\u2019t allowed to racially gerrymander, then there can\u2019t be elections at all!<\/p>\n

\n

A federal court cannot reinstate a statute that the legislature has explicitly repealed and voided. That move presents grave federalism concerns, commandeers the state legislature, departs from the standard remedial process in voting rights cases, and intrudes into the \u2018sensitive area of state legislative redistricting.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Quite the hack! His argument is that, given the 2025 redistricting bill explicitly repealed the prior 2021 maps, any opinion invalidating the 2025 maps cannot return the parties to the old maps, leaving Texas with no maps at all for the rapidly upcoming election. So all a legislature would need to do to impose an illegal map is explicitly repeal the last one and engage the courts in a murder-suicide pact? That\u2019s a special kind of stupid.<\/p>\n

And then it gets worse:<\/p>\n

\n

Also, Judge Brown\u2019s chosen remedy engenders an interesting contradiction: The plaintiffs have insisted, for years, that the 2021 maps are themselves racist and unconstitutional. While Judge Brown\u2019s opinion [is \u2014 sic] exactly what they asked for, it is manifestly absurd for them to mandate an unconstitutional set of 2021 maps!<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Democrats thought the old maps were racist\u2026 so how can they complain just because these maps are more racist? OK, I\u2019m starting to understand why Smith thought he needed a lot more time to think through this opinion before committing it to paper.<\/p>\n

\n

The opinion raises the specter of the legislature\u2019s being incentivized to redistrict \u201cas close to elections as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is, apparently, not meant ironically. His argument is that if courts can halt last-minute election interference it just means legislators engage in last-last-minute interference. Probably true, but is like saying, \u201cif we prosecute murderers, they\u2019ll be incentivized to try to hide their crimes.\u201d <\/p>\n

Smith kicked off his dissent promising a bumpy night, so you can\u2019t accuse him of failing to pay off on his headline. But like Margo Channing in All About Eve<\/em>, it\u2019s hard to separate this opinion from an aging star desperately clinging to the spotlight.<\/p>\n

(Check out the whole opinion on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Judge Jerry Smith\u2019s Soros-Fueled Tantrum Is The Wildest Thing You\u2019ll Read This Week<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Judge Jerry Smith has a flare for off-the-hook opinions. He once dissented by writing a fake majority opinion \u2014 styled to look like a majority opinion \u2014 that he claimed the majority should have written. Good luck to the AI bots scraping that one and trying to figure out what the law actually is! He […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":137218,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Headshot-300x200-PHI6WL.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137248\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/137218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}