Texas Supreme Court Rules Judges Can Decline Same-Sex Marriages on Religious Grounds

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that state judges may decline to perform same-sex marriages if doing so would conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs, without facing disciplinary action. The decision came in the form of a quiet amendment to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, made official on October 24.

The move follows years of legal and cultural tension in Texas over the scope of religious liberty in public service, particularly in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

What the Ruling Says

The amendment affects Canon 4 of the Texas judicial conduct code, which guides how judges manage activities outside their official duties. The new provision now explicitly 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 court’s order does not include an opinion or justification. When asked for clarification, Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said the court was unable to comment due to ongoing litigation related to the issue.

The ruling was signed by all nine justices, each elected on a nonpartisan ballot but endorsed by the Republican Party of Texas.

Background: A Case That Set the Stage

This decision follows the case of Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, a judge from Waco who, in 2019, declined to perform same-sex marriages, citing her Christian faith. She offered to refer same-sex couples to other officials willing to officiate but was issued a public warning by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for allegedly violating the judicial impartiality rules.

Hensley responded by suing the state, claiming the disciplinary action infringed on her First Amendment rights. Her case is still pending.

Religious freedom advocates have followed Hensley’s case closely, viewing it as a test of whether judges are allowed to uphold their personal beliefs without losing their impartiality or positions.

Reactions: Legal Experts, Lawmakers, and Advocates Weigh In

Critics of the ruling argue that it opens the door to selective justice, allowing personal beliefs to override public duties.

Rep. Jessica González, a Democrat from Dallas and chair of the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus, issued a statement calling the change “disappointing but not surprising.”

“The right to marry should not depend on the religious beliefs of a public official,” González said. “This decision chips away at civil protections that have been hard-fought for.”

Others disagree, saying the change protects judges from being forced to act against their core values—particularly when other options exist for couples to be married without issue.

Kerri McHam, director of the Texas First Liberty Forum, defended the ruling as reasonable.

“This doesn’t ban same-sex marriage. It simply allows judges to opt out if their faith is in direct conflict, as long as it doesn’t interfere with legal access. That’s what a pluralistic society should look like.”

Political and Cultural Context

The ruling aligns with a series of policy shifts under Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has prioritized religious liberty and traditional values. In September, Abbott signed legislation restricting gender-designated bathroom access in public buildings to biological sex, making Texas the 20th state to adopt similar laws.

Earlier this year, Abbott praised the Trump administration’s federal directives affirming two biological sexes in federal agency policies, calling them “common sense rooted in biology and law.”

Both the ruling and related legislation reflect a broader national conversation over the role of faith in government, particularly as debates over gender identity, sexuality, and religious expression intensify under President Trump’s second term.

Looking Ahead

Legal challenges may follow, especially from national civil rights groups concerned about potential inconsistencies in the application of marriage rights across counties and jurisdictions.

Still, constitutional scholars note that the Texas ruling does not prevent anyone from getting married—it simply provides legal cover for judges who refrain based on personal convictions.

“This ruling reinforces the idea that judicial neutrality doesn’t require personal neutrality,” said Professor Emily Reinhart, a legal expert at the University of Houston Law Center. “It’s a balancing act between First Amendment protections and equal access.”

As similar challenges surface in other states, Texas may once again serve as the legal and cultural bellwether on how courts navigate the tension between public duty and private belief.