- The Washington Times - Friday, June 28, 2024

The Texas Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for a lawsuit filed by a judge who was sanctioned for refusing to conduct gay-marriage ceremonies herself but referred same-sex couples to other nearby officiants who did.

The court found that Judge Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in McLennan County, has standing to sue the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which gave her a public warning “casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially” in her judicial role.

The 8-1 decision sends the case back to the state court of appeals, which had dismissed the lawsuit, saying Judge Hensley had failed to exhaust her internal-review options.

Hiram Sasser, First Liberty Institute executive general counsel, which represents Judge Hensley, cheered the high court’s decision as a victory for religious freedom.

“Judge Hensley’s way of reconciling her religious beliefs while meeting the needs of her community is not only legal but should stand as a model for public officials across Texas,” Mr. Sasser said. “This is a great victory for Judge Hensley and renews her opportunity to seek justice under the religious liberty protections of the law.”

The Waco-based judge stopped performing marriage ceremonies after the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex unions, as did all other judges in the county at the time.

“Concerned that couples would lack access to a low-cost wedding, Hensley decided to resume conducting weddings for opposite-sex couples and to refer same-sex couples to others she and her staff identified in the area as willing to perform the marriages for the same $100 fee she charged,” said Chief Justice Nathan Hecht in the 28-page majority opinion.

“She prepared a form for her staff to hand out, which explained that she did not perform same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs and provided contact information for others who would,” he said.

After learning of her marriage-referral system in a newspaper article, the commission investigated and issued a public warning against her in 2019. Instead of requesting an appeal hearing by the Special Court of Review, she sued under the free-speech clause and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Justice Hecht said Judge Hensley wasn’t required to ask for an appeal hearing before filing her lawsuit.

“The SCR could not have finally decided whether Hensley is entitled to the relief sought in this case or awarded the relief TRFRA provides if it is determined that her claim has merit,” he said in the ruling. “Nor could the SCR have mooted Hensley’s TRFRA claim. Hensley was not required to further exhaust her remedy by appeal to a court that could not afford her the relief TRFRA provides to successful claimants before suing in a court that can.

In a brief statement, Judge Hensley said Friday that “I am truly grateful to the Supreme Court for giving me the opportunity to continue to stand for religious liberty and the rule of law.”

Justice Debra Lehrmann said in her dissenting opinion that the court “erroneously minimizes the impact that a decision of the Special Court of Review (SCR) … could have had on the claims being pursued here.”

“A faithful application of our precedent leads to the conclusion that exhaustion of administrative remedies was a jurisdictional prerequisite to this suit,” Justice Lehrmann said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice James Blaylock said the high court should have immediately ruled that the commission lacked the authority to sanction judges who refer same-sex couples to other officiants.

“Obergefell gave same-sex couples a right to marriage,” he said, joined by Justice John Devine. “It did not give same-sex couples a right to coerce a judge with religious objections to officiate same-sex weddings. Nor did it give the Texas Judicial Conduct Commission the right to punish a Christian judge who politely directs same-sex couples down the street.”

• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide