A Texas court has awarded McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley $640,000 after she challenged state discipline over her refusal to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because of her religious beliefs.
Court award ends state discipline fight.
Hensley, who serves in the Waco area, argued that Texas justices of the peace may perform weddings but are not required to officiate them. Her case focused on whether the state could punish a judge for declining some ceremonies while continuing to perform others.
The court found that the commission violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law restricts government actions that substantially burden religious exercise unless the state satisfies a strict legal standard.
The court of appeals awarded Hensley $640,000 after finding that the disciplinary action crossed the line. The award includes both compensatory damages and legal fees tied to the litigation.
The wedding policy followed the 2015 ruling.
The dispute began after the Supreme Court recognized a nationwide right to same-sex marriage in 2015. After that decision, Hensley stopped performing all wedding ceremonies.
She later resumed officiating weddings for opposite-sex couples. She declined to conduct same-sex ceremonies and directed those couples to other officials or officiants.
Her lawyers argued that the referral system preserved access to marriage services. They also said her courtroom duties remained separate from optional wedding ceremonies.
Commission warned Hensley in 2019
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct opened an inquiry in 2018 and issued a public warning the next year. The warning said Hensley’s conduct could cast doubt on her judicial impartiality.
The agency’s discipline centered on judicial ethics rules that require judges to avoid extrajudicial conduct that undermines confidence in their fairness. Hensley denied that her religious position affected her treatment of litigants.
Texas Supreme Court revived the case.
In 2024, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Hensley could continue pursuing her religious-liberty claims against the commission. The court did not decide at that stage whether she should win the case.
The high court held that her failure to appeal the public warning through a separate process did not block her from suing under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The religious liberty argument prevailed.
Hensley’s legal team framed the case as a dispute over conscience rights. They argued that Texas law did not require her to perform weddings, so the state could not force her to participate in ceremonies that conflicted with her faith.
The state’s position focused on public confidence in the judiciary. A judge’s decision to treat couples differently in a public-facing service, the commission argued, could affect how LGBTQ+ people viewed her impartiality.
Same-sex marriage rights remain unchanged.
The judgment does not allow Texas officials to deny marriage licenses. It also does not permit a judge to refuse courtroom access or judicial rulings based on sexual orientation.
The case dealt with wedding ceremonies, not the legal right to marry. That distinction shaped the legal outcome. Texas justices of the peace can conduct weddings, but they are not required to do so. Hensley’s attorneys used that point to argue that the ceremonies were outside her mandatory duties.
Texas changed the judge conduct guidance.
The dispute also unfolded as Texas revised its judicial ethics guidance. In 2025, the Texas Supreme Court added language saying a judge does not violate the judicial canons by publicly declining to perform wedding ceremonies based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
That change gave judges clearer protection for religious objections tied to wedding ceremonies. It also narrowed the commission’s ability to discipline judges over that specific conduct.
Separate federal challenge continues.
Hensley has also pursued a separate federal case tied to same-sex marriage law. That case is distinct from the Texas lawsuit that produced the $640,000 award.
The state judgment resolves the damages fight over the commission’s disciplinary action. It does not overturn Obergefell or decide whether the Supreme Court should revisit same-sex marriage.
The commission’s next legal step was not immediately clear from the available information. Any appeal or agency response would determine whether the Travis County judgment remains the final outcome in the state case.
For now, Hensley has secured a major legal and financial victory in Texas. The ruling leaves intact same-sex marriage rights while strengthening religious-liberty protections for judges who decline to perform wedding ceremonies.
