The Texas Supreme Court has issued a ruling clarifying that judges who decline to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies due to religious beliefs are not prohibited from continuing to officiate traditional weddings for heterosexual couples.
The decision comes in response to a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit regarding Jack County Judge Keith Umphress. Umphress sued the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2020 to determine whether his Christian faith allowed him to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages.
Umphress currently continues to perform traditional weddings for heterosexual couples. A federal district court previously dismissed his claims, concluding that he had not faced a credible threat of enforcement by the commission and had not changed his practices following a disciplinary action involving McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who faced similar scrutiny.
After the dismissal, Umphress appealed to the 5th Circuit. The appellate court subsequently certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court, which oversees the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
In October, the Texas Supreme Court added a comment to Canon 4 of the code stating, “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.” In a per curiam opinion returning its answer to the 5th Circuit, the Court cited this comment.
However, the issue remains under review in a separate case involving Hensley, which is before a Travis County district court. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct maintains that the comment does not fully resolve the matter. A brief filed in the Hensley case asserts that “the comment only states that judges may decide not to marry people based on a religious objection — it does not state they may also choose to marry other people if that decision results in apparent discrimination that could ‘cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge[.]’”
Attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represents Umphress, summarized the commission’s position as arguing that a judge who objects to performing same-sex ceremonies “must stop performing all weddings if they wish to protect themselves from disciplinary action under Canon 4.”
%20(1).png)
%20(1).jpg)
