A years-long legal battle over religious liberty and judicial ethics has ended with a significant victory for a Texas judge who declined to officiate same-sex weddings because of her Christian beliefs.
A Travis County district court ruled that the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) violated Judge Dianne Hensley’s rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ordering the commission to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages and approximately $630,000 in attorney’s fees.
The decision marks the latest chapter in a dispute that began in 2019, when the commission issued Hensley a public warning after she recused herself from performing same-sex marriages.
Hensley never refused to allow couples to marry. Instead, she maintained a referral list directing same-sex couples to nearby judges and officiants who would gladly perform their ceremonies, allowing weddings to proceed without significant delay while preserving her religious convictions.
First Liberty Institute, the conservative legal organization that represented Hensley, described the ruling as a complete vindication.
“Judge Hensley always adhered to the law and the legal guidance provided by the Attorney General of Texas,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute. “We are grateful that this case has concluded and that Judge Hensley was vindicated.”
The dispute eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled in 2024 that Hensley’s lawsuit against the commission could move forward.
A district court in Texas has awarded a substantial financial victory to a state judge who objected to performing same-sex weddings that would violate her Christian faith.
Judge Dianne Hensley won a big financial award for attorney fees and damages in her lawsuit against the… pic.twitter.com/CLgbgeLYAV
— CBN News (@CBNNews) June 23, 2026
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock emphasized an important fact that shaped the case: no same-sex couple had filed a complaint against Hensley.
“I find it encouraging that we have no indication any same-sex couple even considered handling the situation that way. What decent person would?” Blacklock wrote. “Judge Hensley treated them respectfully. They got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win.”
That observation became one of the most frequently cited passages from the court’s opinion because it underscored the accommodation Hensley attempted to provide.
Speaking with the Houston Chronicle, Sasser argued that his client’s actions reflected how religious liberty can function in practice.
“She was modeling the way religious liberty works in this country, which is that we’re not going to make people do stuff that violates their religious beliefs,” he said. “We should reward the people who are still exercising their religious beliefs and opting out of things, but doing so in a way where they’re being a good neighbor.”
Supporters of the ruling say it reinforces the principle that government officials do not automatically surrender sincerely held religious beliefs when they take public office, particularly when accommodations can be made without denying services to the public.
Critics, however, have argued that judges should provide identical services to every citizen regardless of personal religious convictions, contending that public officials should not decline official duties based on faith.
Although Hensley has prevailed in this state case, another legal battle remains ahead.
Last December, the Waco-area judge filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide. That lawsuit raises different constitutional questions and remains pending.
The latest ruling, however, focused narrowly on religious liberty protections under Texas law rather than the legality of same-sex marriage itself.
