Full Breakdown
Texas Judge Wins $640,000 After Refusing Same-Sex Weddings
6/27/2026, 1:01:28 AM
Court Ruling
On June 16, Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ordered the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to pay Justice Dianne Hensley $10,000 in damages and $630,000 in attorney fees, totaling $640,000, and barred the commission from disciplining her for refusing to officiate same-sex marriages on religious grounds.
Legal Background
The suit invoked the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act after a 2019 warning for limiting weddings to opposite-sex couples. Obergefell (2015) legalized same-sex marriage, and the Texas Supreme Court amended judicial conduct rules in 2023 to allow judges to decline ceremonies that conflict with held religious beliefs.
Key Figures
The dispute involves Justice Dianne Hensley, Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, First Liberty Institute counsel Hiram Sasser, attorney Jonathan Mitchell, the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, and the Texas Supreme Court.
Timeline
2015 Obergefell legalizes same-sex marriage; 2016 Hensley resumes opposite-sex weddings only; 2019 commission issues warning; 2023 Supreme Court amends conduct rules; 2024 commission dismisses sanction and June 16 award issued; May 2025 appeals court permits suit to proceed.
Implications
The ruling confirms Texas judges may invoke religious liberty to decline same-sex wedding officiations, while limiting commission’s power to sanction such refusals. Critics warn the precedent could enable broader discrimination in public services.
Official Statements
Judge Gamble said the commission lacked authority to punish religious refusals. Hensley called commission’s action biased and expressed satisfaction. First Liberty Institute called the outcome a vindication of religious-freedom protections. The commission declined comment.
Criticism & Opposition
Legal analysts argue that allowing judges to refuse services based on belief undermines equal protection and could extend to protected classes. Attorney Jonathan Mitchell noted Texas law does not list sexual orientation as a protected characteristic, raising discrimination concerns.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on whether the 2023 Supreme Court amendment was an ‘edict’ or a rule change, and no source explains the commission’s rationale for dismissing its 2024 sanction.
Verbatim Quotes
- “People cannot be made — cannot be forced into participating in things that they have a religious disagreement with,” — Hiram Sasser, First Liberty Institute
- “I think the agency overstepped itself, and what we saw was their bias on the issue and not the law.” — Dianne Hensley, Justice of the Peace
- “Notably absent from that list of protected criteria that I just mentioned is any mention of discrimination on account of sex or sexual orientation,” — Jonathan Mitchell, attorney
- “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.” — Texas Supreme Court amendment
Future Litigation
The statewide class-action seeks tens of millions in damages, and the 2023 amendment may be cited in future challenges. Hensley also filed a federal suit urging the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell.
