The Texas Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling Friday clarifying that state judges are not required to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies if doing so conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The decision, hailed by conservative legal advocates, amends the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and ensures judges cannot face sanctions for declining to officiate a same-sex marriage.
The ruling responds to questions certified by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had sought guidance following lawsuits involving judges who refused to conduct same-sex weddings due to Christian beliefs.
KERA News reports that the court’s commentary, effective immediately, addresses concerns over whether judges could face disciplinary action under the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct for following their conscience in marriage ceremonies.
Central to the cases was Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley.
After the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, Hensley stopped performing all weddings to honor her religious convictions.
She later resumed officiating only for heterosexual couples, referring same-sex couples to other local judges.
In 2019, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning against her, prompting Hensley to file a lawsuit asserting protection under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Hensley’s case faced early procedural challenges.
Initial rulings dismissed her claims, but the Texas Supreme Court revived the litigation to address broader questions of religious liberty for judges.
Jack County Judge Brian Umphress filed a separate lawsuit in 2020, preemptively challenging potential sanctions after he decided to officiate only heterosexual marriages in accordance with his church’s teachings.
While a federal judge initially dismissed Umphress’ claims, the Fifth Circuit sought state clarification from the Texas Supreme Court, according to The Texas Tribune.
The court’s clarification specifically amends Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from taking actions that could cast doubt on their impartiality.
The ruling emphasizes that judges following sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be disciplined for declining to perform certain weddings, effectively shielding all Texas judges from potential sanctions on this basis.
Legal advocates praised the ruling as a significant reinforcement of religious freedom.
Hiram Sasser of the First Liberty Institute, which represented Hensley, described it as a “landmark victory” that protects all Texas judges going forward.
Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, in a concurring opinion, highlighted that Hensley treated same-sex couples respectfully and that prior warnings from the commission were unnecessary.
The decision comes as voters in Texas consider changes to the composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in the Nov. 4 constitutional amendment election.
Proposition 12 would allow the governor to appoint seven of the commission’s public members, subject to Senate approval, a move supporters say strengthens accountability amid scrutiny of judicial disciplinary practices.
Observers note that the ruling may have implications beyond Texas, reinforcing protections for judicial officers under state religious freedom laws and potentially influencing ongoing federal debates over compelled participation in same-sex weddings.
Legal scholars suggest future challenges could arise regarding constitutional equal protection claims, but the Supreme Court’s clarification currently establishes clear guidelines for judicial conduct in these matters.
By amending Canon 4 and clarifying judges’ rights, the Texas Supreme Court has ensured that judicial officers can uphold their personal religious convictions without facing professional repercussions while maintaining respect for the rights of same-sex couples to seek other officiants.
Conservative legal groups view the ruling as a major win for religious liberty and a precedent-setting decision for the state judiciary.
