The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled a judicial body was wrong to reprimand a publicly elected county Justice of the Peace who’s also referred to as a judge in Waco, Texas, after she declined to officiate at same sex weddings because of her Christian faith.
In an 8-1 majority decision, the court cleared Judge Dianne Hensley to sue the State Commission on Judicial Conduct which had issued her with an official public warning over her refusal to officiate at same sex weddings, citing a violation of judicial impartiality based on sexual orientation. The Commission only learned the judge was not conducting same sex weddings from an interview she gave to a newspaper four years after she was elected to office.
Dianne Hensley was first elected in 2014 and has been twice re-elected since. To ensure McLennan County residents could access low-cost wedding ceremonies after the US Supreme Court made same sex marriage a national right in 2015, Judge Hensley “invested extensive time and resources to compile a referral list of alternative, local wedding officiants,” according to her lawyers from First Liberty Institute. That list included at least one option within walking distance of her office, which reduced the cost to the same amount Hensley received and who could do same sex weddings within the same timeframe.
“No one complained to Hensley, her staff, or the Commission about her marriage-referral system or her ability to be fair — or even her appearance of fairness — in any judicial proceeding. Nevertheless, the Commission opened a preliminary investigation,” the Texas Supreme Court ruling stated.
In 2019, after the Commission questioned the judge, it issued the public warning, concluding that she violated a statute that applies to conduct in the performance of judicial duties and another statute that regulates a judge’s extra-judicial conduct. Despite the warning, Judge Hensley continued her practice and sued the Commission, seeking a court order to block future sanctions.
The Commission argued that because the judge did not appeal against that warning as she was entitled to, she could not take legal action against the Commission. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and ruled Judge Hensley was still entitled to file a lawsuit.
Judge Hensley contended that her refusal to officiate at same sex weddings is protected under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and an exercise of her religious beliefs. She insisted that refusing to conduct such weddings does not impede her ability to perform her judicial duties impartially.
The court’s majority opinion stressed that while judges must follow the law impartially, they are not required to officiate at weddings as part of their judicial duties. The opinion further clarified that Hensley’s decision to refer same sex couples to other officiants does not necessarily imply bias or prejudice.
In a concurring opinion, two justices argued that the Commission’s actions against Judge Hensley constituted unlawful religious discrimination. They expressed that politely declining to participate in a same sex wedding for religious reasons does not demonstrate an inability to judge impartially. “By going out of its way to take sides in a contentious moral and political debate .. the Commission has done far more, in the eyes of many Texans, to undermine public confidence in Texas’s judicial branch than a lone justice of the peace in Waco ever could.”
Her lawyers from First Liberty hailed the decision as a victory for religious liberty. “[The judge] came up with an innovative solution that followed the law and allowed her to reconcile her religious convictions while serving the needs of her community. And no one complained. But she’s been punished for ensuring that anyone who wants to get married can get married.”
Image: First Liberty Institute
