AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that state judges may decline to perform same-sex marriages if doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs, a decision that reignites a decade-long legal and cultural fight over LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom in the state.
The ruling, which amends Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, states: “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.” The change took effect immediately, according to Dallas Fox’s KDFW.
While the amendment technically applies to all weddings, critics argue that it disproportionately affects same-sex couples and undermines the impartiality of the judiciary. Advocacy groups fear it could weaken public confidence in Texas courts and chip away at the practical enforcement of marriage equality.
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct after it sanctioned Judge Dianne Hensley in 2019 for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings. Hensley claimed her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so, prompting a wider debate over the intersection of personal faith and judicial duty.
Following Hensley’s lawsuit, the Commission withdrew its sanction last year, and Gov. Greg Abbott reportedly pulled two nominees from the Commission who had voted to censure her. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later asked the state’s high court to weigh in, setting the stage for Friday’s decision.
Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, known for his sympathy toward religious liberty claims, previously wrote that Hensley “went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win.”
The First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group representing Hensley, called the ruling a victory for “religious freedom.” “Now going forward, every judge in Texas will enjoy the freedom Judge Hensley has fought so hard for in her case,” said Hiram Sasser, the group’s executive general counsel, in a statement to KERA.
However, legal experts caution that the decision may invite new constitutional challenges. Douglas Lang, attorney for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, said the legal dispute is far from over. “I wouldn’t prejudge what the Supreme Court says,” Lang told KERA. “We’ve suggested in our briefs what we think they oughta say, but that’s what makes an appeal.”
Jason Mazzone, a University of Illinois law professor, warned that judges who refuse to perform same-sex marriages could face lawsuits under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “One of the claims that I think will be made… is that, ‘well, there are other people who can perform the wedding ceremony, so you can’t insist that a particular judge do it,’” he said. “But that, of course, is not how equal protection works, and it’s not how we expect government officials to operate.”
The debate mirrors the legal fight involving Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis was ordered to pay $100,000 in damages last year and has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell. The Court is expected to decide on November 7 whether to hear her case.
As Texas once again becomes a focal point in America’s ongoing clash between religious liberty and LGBTQ+ civil rights, both sides are preparing for what could be another wave of litigation — and a potential national precedent.
Also Read This: Veteran arrested after allegedly threatening to kill Trump, “raise him from the dead,” and kill him again over LGBT and Immigration Policies
