AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas appellate court has granted a new trial to Judge Dianne Hensley, who faced scrutiny for her refusal to officiate same-sex weddings. The Third Court of Appeals has ruled that Hensley can advance her legal challenge against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC).
This ruling follows a prior decision by the Texas Supreme Court, which sent the case back to a lower court in June 2024. The Supreme Court directed the lower court to examine Hensley’s argument that the SCJC’s public reprimand infringed upon her deeply held religious convictions.
Hensley’s legal representation includes First Liberty Institute and attorney Jonathan Mitchell from Mitchell Law LLP. Hiram Sasser, the Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, expressed satisfaction with the appellate court’s decision, emphasizing that Hensley deserves a definitive resolution to her case. Sasser stated it is essential for her to be able to serve her community without hesitation.
In light of her decision to recuse herself from officiating weddings, Hensley developed a referral list featuring local officiants, including one available to accommodate same-sex couples at similar rates and times. This measure aimed to ensure that residents of McLennan County had access to marriage ceremonies, irrespective of sexual orientation. Despite the absence of public complaints, the SCJC issued a public warning against Hensley, alleging a breach of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Texas law does not mandate that judges perform weddings, and Hensley maintains that she acted lawfully while making accommodations for all couples. The unfolding legal battle raises significant questions about the intersection of religious beliefs and professional duties within the judiciary.
The case continues to attract attention as it highlights broader societal debates regarding the rights of individuals in public office and their religious liberties. As Hensley seeks to navigate the court’s proceedings, her situation underscores the complexities judges face when balancing personal beliefs with the responsibilities of their positions.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.