A recent ruling by a Texas judge has brought to light the complex interplay between religious freedom and judicial conduct. Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct could not discipline McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings based on her Christian beliefs.
This case, which dates back to 2015, has evolved into a significant legal battle, highlighting the tensions between personal beliefs and professional duties. The ruling has far-reaching implications for judges and justices of the peace across Texas.
The Origins of the Legal Dispute
The case began after the U.S. Supreme Court‘s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. In response to this ruling, some judges chose to officiate all marriages regardless of sexual orientation, while others opted not to officiate any. Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley initially stopped performing weddings altogether but resumed in 2016, limiting her services to opposite-sex couples.
Hensley argued that her decision did not impede the right of LGBTQ+ couples to marry, as other judges in McLennan County were willing to officiate their weddings. She also noted that justices of the peace in Texas are not required to perform marriage ceremonies. According to court documents, Hensley referred same-sex couples to other judges or officiants.
The Commission’s Response and Hensley’s Legal Battle
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct launched an inquiry into Hensley’s policy in and issued a public warning the following year. In response, Hensley filed a lawsuit against the commission, arguing that her actions were protected by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This act prohibits government restrictions that substantially burden an individual’s right to religious freedom.
The legal journey was lengthy and complex. In 2026, the commission dismissed Hensley’s sanction, stating that none of its current commissioners were employed at the agency when she was reprimanded. However, Austin’s Third Court of Appeals ruled in May 2026 that Hensley’s suit could proceed in Travis County District Court, ultimately leading to Judge Gamble’s ruling this week.
The Implications of the Ruling
Judge Gamble’s ruling awarded Hensley $10,000 in damages and $630,000 in attorney’s fees, stating that the commission infringed on Hensley’s religious liberty rights. The ruling emphasized that the state agency did not have the right to “investigate, sanction, or discipline” her for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings due to her Christian beliefs.
Hensley expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating, “I think the agency overstepped itself, and what we saw was their bias on the issue and not the law.” Attorney Hiram Sasser of the First Liberty Institute, a conservative law firm that helped represent Hensley, commented, “People cannot be made — cannot be forced into participating in things that they have a religious disagreement with.”
The ruling has sparked discussions on the balance between religious freedom and judicial impartiality. It has also prompted the Texas Supreme Court to amend state rules on judicial impartiality, clarifying that judges who decline to perform a wedding ceremony based on a “sincerely held religious belief” will not violate the state’s rules on judicial impartiality.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over religious freedom and judicial conduct in Texas.
