On October 24, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court handed down a ruling that is already sending ripples through both the state’s legal system and its LGBTQ+ community. In a move that has sparked heated debate, the court clarified that Texas judges and justices of the peace may refuse to officiate same-sex weddings if doing so would violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs." According to Nexstar and Los Angeles Blade, this new interpretation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct means judges can opt out of performing weddings that conflict with their personal convictions, without fear of disciplinary action for judicial bias.
The decision follows years of legal wrangling and public controversy. The original case that brought the issue to a head traces back to McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who was publicly reprimanded in 2019 after she declined to marry same-sex couples but continued officiating opposite-sex weddings. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct found her actions cast doubt on her impartiality—a core requirement for judges. Hensley, however, has spent six years fighting that reprimand, insisting she was punished for adhering to her Christian beliefs.
In its official comment, the Texas Supreme Court stated, "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." This language, inserted into the section of the code dealing with extra-judicial activities, appears to directly contradict other provisions that bar judges from showing bias or prejudice based on race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
The origins of this clarification are rooted in a request from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in 2025. The federal appeals court asked the Texas Supreme Court to clarify state law after Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who refused to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, sued the state over concerns he could be punished for his stance. While the Texas Supreme Court did not directly answer the federal court’s question, its rule change appears to resolve Umphress’s case, at least in practical terms.
Legal experts warn, however, that the court’s broad language could open the door to even wider forms of discrimination. Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told Nexstar that the ruling could theoretically allow judges to refuse to perform not just same-sex marriages, but also opposite-sex or even interracial marriages, if doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. "Given the wording of the comment of the Texas Supreme Court, it does seem as you suggest that a judge who says, ‘For religious reasons I’m not going to perform the interracial marriage,’ that too would fall within the scope of the comment that the Texas Supreme Court issued and would not trigger any sort of discipline of the judge," Mazzone explained.
This possibility has alarmed LGBTQ advocates and civil rights groups. Brad Pritchett, the interim CEO of Equality Texas, told Nexstar, "No one’s religious freedom should be used as a weapon to harm other individuals. I think in a lot of ways that’s what a ruling like this gives people the power to do." Pritchett described the move as yet another escalation in the longstanding pattern of discrimination against LGBTQ Texans. "Our community is facing discrimination in a place like Texas for decades, and decades, and decades, and that discrimination is just continuing to increase and skyrocket actually," he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas is closely monitoring the situation. Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQAI+ rights at the ACLU, expressed disappointment: "To be a judge is to be a public servant. Offering to do marriages for the general public, but then turning around and saying, ‘Unless that couple is a LGBTQAI+ couple,’ that’s discrimination. That’s not serving the general public."
According to Los Angeles Blade, the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus Chair Jessica González also weighed in on November 3, 2025, stating, "The Texas House LGBTQ Caucus is disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that the Texas Supreme Court is not willing to stand up for the rights of LGBTQIA+ Texans. Our right to marriage should never depend on someone else’s religious beliefs. This change in the Judicial Conduct Code will only further erode civil rights in Texas."
While same-sex marriage remains legal in Texas, legal scholars argue that the state’s highest court has now added a significant barrier for same-sex couples seeking to marry. The ruling, they say, could raise serious federal constitutional issues, particularly under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits government discrimination. Mazzone, the law professor, dismissed the idea that same-sex couples could simply seek out another judge if denied, telling Nexstar, "The fact that there is an alternative does not resolve the equal protection problem."
This is not the only legal battle currently playing out in Texas over the intersection of religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. The Texas Supreme Court is reviewing a related case referred by the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, involving Judge Keith Umphress, who also refused to perform same-sex weddings for religious reasons. The outcome could further define the boundaries between religious liberty and judicial impartiality in the state.
The broader context in Texas is one of mounting tension between state officials and LGBTQ advocates. The Republican-led legislature and executive branch have advanced a series of measures targeting LGBTQ rights, from bathroom bills to restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have fought back, sometimes by breaking quorum to block anti-trans legislation, as reported by Los Angeles Blade.
As the legal and political battles rage on, the impact on real Texans is profound. For same-sex couples planning weddings, the new judicial guidance injects uncertainty and potential humiliation into what should be a joyful milestone. For judges and justices of the peace, it offers protection for religious convictions, but at the cost of undermining public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary.
At its core, the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling has reignited a debate that has simmered since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015: How should the law balance religious liberty with the rights of LGBTQ Americans to equal treatment under the law? As Texas now stands as an outlier in allowing judges to refuse service on religious grounds, the answer may ultimately be decided not in Austin, but in federal courts—perhaps even the nation’s highest court—once again.