Religious-Liberty Beatdown: State Pays Up

A Texas judge just won a major religious-liberty showdown and forced state officials to pay dearly for targeting her faith.

Story Snapshot

Texas Judge Dianne Hensley won $640,000 after being punished for refusing to perform same-sex weddings based on her Christian beliefs.^[4]^[7]
A Texas district court ruled the State Commission on Judicial Conduct violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and blocked future discipline against her.^[1]^[4]^[7]
The Texas Supreme Court and updated judicial rules now clearly protect judges who decline same-sex weddings for sincerely held religious reasons.^[3]^[4]^[13]^[14]
The case exposes how a state agency tried to stretch “judicial ethics” to crush religious liberty — and lost.

Judge Hensley’s Stand For Faith And The Price She Paid

Judge Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace from Waco, told the public in 2017 that, because of her Christian beliefs, she would not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.^[3]^[7] She continued to perform weddings for opposite-sex couples and set up a simple referral system so same-sex couples could go to local ministers willing to officiate their ceremonies.^[2]^[4] No complaints were filed against her referral plan, and she followed guidance from the Texas attorney general’s office at the time.^[2]^[4] Despite that, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a formal Public Warning against her in 2019, claiming her actions cast doubt on her ability to be fair to people based on sexual orientation.^[3]

After the Public Warning, Judge Hensley did not back down. In 2019, she sued the Commission under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the government had burdened her right to live out her faith while serving as a judge.^[3]^[4] Lower courts first tossed her case on technical grounds, saying she should have appealed the warning through a special review court instead.^[3] In 2024, the Texas Supreme Court stepped in and revived her lawsuit, holding that she was allowed to go to regular court to seek real relief, including damages and orders protecting her religious freedom going forward.^[3]^[2] That ruling put the case back on track and signaled that the high court took her claims seriously.^[3]^[6]

Court Rulings Turn The Tide For Religious Liberty

Once the Texas Supreme Court reopened the case, it made clear that the Commission had gone too far in trying to punish religious objections to same-sex marriage.^[3]^[6] The high court also approved new language in the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, stating that “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.”^[4]^[13]^[14] That comment, adopted in late 2024, removed any doubt that Texas judges can refuse to perform same-sex weddings when their faith conflicts with those ceremonies.^[13]^[14]^[17] Then, on January 9, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal appeals court and said plainly that judges may refuse to perform same-sex weddings for moral or religious reasons while still performing opposite-sex weddings, and that this does not violate judicial ethics.^[13]^[7]

With that backdrop, Judge Hensley’s case returned to a Travis County district court. On June 16, 2026, the court granted summary judgment in her favor under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.^[1]^[7] The judge found that the Commission had “substantially burdened” her free exercise of religion and failed to prove that punishing her was necessary to serve a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way.^[1] The court awarded her the maximum $10,000 in compensatory damages allowed by the statute plus more than $630,000 in attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, for a total recovery of about $640,000.^[4]^[7]^[8] Just as important, the court permanently barred the Commission from investigating, sanctioning, or disciplining her for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs, even if she continues to perform weddings for opposite-sex couples.^[4]^[7]

A Rebuke To Bureaucrats Who Target People Of Faith

The Commission had argued that judicial ethics rules only allow judges to stop performing all weddings, not selectively refuse same-sex ceremonies while still marrying opposite-sex couples.^[3]^[14] That view would force religious judges into a corner: either violate your beliefs or stop offering a service to everyone. The Texas Supreme Court firmly rejected that reading, clarifying that judges may publicly refuse same-sex weddings based on sincere religious belief while continuing to perform other weddings, and that doing so is not an ethics violation.^[13]^[17] A Texas Supreme Court justice even criticized the Commission for trying to twist the court’s clear “no” answer to suggest judges could still be punished for religious-based refusals.^[7]^[13]

The decision resolved a lawsuit that Judge Dianne Hensley filed against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct after it disciplined her for choosing not to officiate same-sex marriages.https://t.co/iHRZ30AIrv pic.twitter.com/rjaPYbP7q5

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 20, 2026

For many conservatives, this case shows how far unelected bureaucrats will go to push progressive social agendas under the banner of “impartiality.” The Commission spent years and nearly a million dollars entangled in litigation, only to be told it had violated a judge’s religious freedom and must pay her legal bills.^[4]^[7]^[21] Meanwhile, Texas voters and lawmakers have been moving in the opposite direction, supporting stronger protections for people of faith and resisting efforts to use government power to force religious officials to endorse same-sex marriage.^[2]^[14]^[15] Judge Hensley’s win sends a clear message: in Texas, conscience still matters, and government agencies that try to punish traditional beliefs can be held to account in court.