Texas Judge Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Nationwide Marriage Equality

On Friday, December 19, 2025, Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, Texas, filed a federal lawsuit in Waco's federal court against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The lawsuit seeks to block the commission from investigating or disciplining Hensley for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, while also urging courts to declare the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges unconstitutional. Hensley, who has cited her religious beliefs as the basis for her stance, argues that Obergefell "subordinat state law to the policy preferences of unelected judges."

Hensley is represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent conservative attorney known for crafting Texas' 2021 abortion ban legislation that navigated around Roe v. Wade protections. In the filing, Mitchell asserts that "the federal judiciary has no authority to recognize or invent ‘fundamental’ constitutional rights." He explicitly calls for overturning Obergefell, drawing parallels to the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision that returned abortion regulation to the states. Mitchell further claims, “The Commission’s bullying of Judge Hensley and its menacing behavior toward other Christian judges is the direct result of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Obergefell that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right,” adding that “there is nothing in the language of the Constitution that even remotely suggests that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.”

This lawsuit stems from events dating back to 2015, shortly after Obergefell mandated marriage equality across the United States, affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry. Hensley ceased performing all marriages due to her religious opposition to same-sex unions but resumed officiating for opposite-sex couples in 2016, referring same-sex couples to other officiants. In 2018, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct launched an inquiry, culminating in a 2019 public warning for violating a canon that requires judges to avoid actions casting doubt on their impartiality.

Hensley challenged the warning in state court. Last year, the Texas Supreme Court permitted her case to proceed, prompting the commission to withdraw the warning. Separately, another Texas judge sued for protection against penalties for marrying only opposite-sex couples. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived that case earlier in 2025, remanding it to the Texas Supreme Court. In response, on October 24, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court amended the relevant judicial canon, adding a comment 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.”

However, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct clarified in a recent filing that this amendment allows judges to opt out of all weddings due to religious beliefs but does not permit performing ceremonies for opposite-sex couples while refusing same-sex ones. Mitchell described this position as “astounding,” arguing it leaves Hensley vulnerable to the same discipline risks as in 2016.

LGBTQ+ advocates view Hensley's lawsuit as a direct threat to the hard-won right of same-sex couples and other LGBTQ+ individuals to marry nationwide. The Advocate described Hensley as "the new Kim Davis," referencing the former Kentucky clerk whose refusals to issue marriage licenses post-Obergefell drew national attention. In November 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Davis's appeal in Davis v. Ermold, where she sought to overturn Obergefell amid damages for denying licenses to same-sex couples. Justices Thomas and Alito have previously expressed interest in revisiting Obergefell but found Davis's case unsuitable.

Lambda Legal has emphasized that marriage equality remains under attack, urging collective action to protect it. Critics argue that allowing judges to selectively officiate based on sexual orientation undermines the impartiality required of public officials and burdens same-sex couples seeking accessible marriage services. Balls and Strikes noted that while justices of the peace are not the only officiants in Texas, such rulings make marriage "more challenging for at least some same-sex couples," eroding the right when dependent on officials' willingness to treat everyone with dignity.

The lawsuit acknowledges lower courts cannot overrule Supreme Court precedent but aims to elevate the issue for potential high court review. As Texas, the second-most populous state, navigates these tensions between religious freedom claims and equal protection under Obergefell, the case highlights ongoing national debates over LGBTQ+ rights. Advocacy groups like Lambda Legal stress the need for vigilance to safeguard marriage equality for all couples, including same-sex and transgender individuals.