At the center of the controversy was Hensley’s decision to recuse herself from performing same-sex weddings while continuing to officiate traditional marriages. Rather than leaving couples without options, Hensley maintained a list of alternative officiants who were willing to perform same-sex ceremonies for the same fee she charged.
Despite that accommodation, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct launched disciplinary proceedings against her, arguing that her actions violated judicial ethics rules.
The dispute quickly evolved into a broader legal battle over the rights of public officials to exercise their faith without fear of government retaliation.
Hensley responded by filing suit, arguing that the commission’s actions violated protections guaranteed under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
According to court filings, she maintained that her decision was based entirely on her Christian faith and that forcing her to personally participate in ceremonies that conflicted with those beliefs would amount to government coercion.
State regulators took a different view.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct argued that Hensley could not selectively offer wedding services to some couples while declining to officiate ceremonies for others based on religious objections.
As cited in court proceedings, the commission contended that she could not “welcome to her chambers heterosexual couples for whom she willingly offers to conduct marriage ceremonies,” while also opting out of “officiating due to a sincere religious belief.”
The legal landscape shifted dramatically earlier this year when the Texas Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in a separate but related case.
On January 9, the state’s highest court concluded that the Commission on Judicial Conduct lacked authority under Texas law to punish judges who declined to perform same-sex weddings because of moral or religious objections.
That decision effectively undercut the foundation of the commission’s case against Hensley and paved the way for her eventual courtroom victory.
Following the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling, the district court handling Hensley’s lawsuit ruled in her favor, bringing an end to a legal fight that had stretched on for years.
First Liberty Institute, the religious liberty legal organization representing Hensley, celebrated the outcome.
Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in a statement that “Judge Hensley always adhered to the law and the legal guidance provided by the Attorney General of Texas.”
“We are grateful that this case has concluded and that Judge Hensley was vindicated.”
The organization also indicated that the broader legal battle is far from over.
According to First Liberty Institute, a statewide class-action lawsuit remains active against the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The suit was filed on behalf of Texas justices of the peace who reportedly stopped performing weddings altogether after concerns they could face disciplinary action for declining same-sex ceremonies.
The potential financial consequences for the commission could be substantial.
“Although the Hensley litigation has concluded, the Commission is still facing a statewide class-action lawsuit on behalf of justices of the peace who were unwilling to perform same-sex marriages and stopped performing weddings entirely to avoid disciplinary action from the Commission.”
“The class action is seeking damages in the tens of millions of dollars for income lost by justices of the peace throughout the state.”
Meanwhile, Hensley continues to pursue additional legal challenges.
She has separately filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
That complaint argues that wedding officiation is a form of protected expression and that government officials cannot compel judges to participate in ceremonies that violate their religious convictions.
As the lawsuit states, “Officiating a wedding ceremony is speech, and the commissioners are preventing Judge Hensley from engaging in this speech unless she agrees to perform homosexual marriages in violation of her Christian faith and in violation of Texas law.”
For supporters of religious liberty, the ruling marks a major victory. For critics, it reignites the debate over where the line should be drawn between public service obligations and constitutional protections for faith.
Either way, Judge Hensley’s legal victory is likely to remain a significant chapter in the ongoing national debate over religious freedom, government authority, and the rights of public officials to live out their beliefs without state interference.
