The Texas Supreme Courtroom cleared the way in which Friday for a lawsuit filed by a choose who was sanctioned for refusing to conduct gay-marriage ceremonies herself however referred same-sex {couples} to different close by officiants who did.
The courtroom discovered that Choose Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in McLennan County, has standing to sue the State Fee on Judicial Conduct, which gave her a public warning “casting doubt on her capability to behave impartially” in her judicial function.
The 8-1 choice sends the case again to the state courtroom of appeals, which had dismissed the lawsuit, saying Choose Hensley had didn’t exhaust her internal-review choices.
Hiram Sasser, First Liberty Institute government normal counsel, which represents Choose Hensley, cheered the excessive courtroom’s choice as a victory for spiritual freedom.
“Choose Hensley’s approach of reconciling her spiritual beliefs whereas assembly the wants of her neighborhood just isn’t solely authorized however ought to stand as a mannequin for public officers throughout Texas,” Mr. Sasser mentioned. “It is a nice victory for Choose Hensley and renews her alternative to hunt justice beneath the spiritual liberty protections of the legislation.”
The Waco-based choose stopped performing marriage ceremonies after the Supreme Courtroom’s 2015 choice in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex unions, as did all different judges within the county on the time.
“Involved that {couples} would lack entry to a low-cost wedding ceremony, Hensley determined to renew conducting weddings for opposite-sex {couples} and to refer same-sex {couples} to others she and her employees recognized within the space as keen to carry out the marriages for a similar $100 charge she charged,” mentioned Chief Justice Nathan Hecht within the 28-page majority opinion.
“She ready a kind for her employees handy out, which defined that she didn’t carry out same-sex weddings due to her spiritual beliefs and supplied contact data for others who would,” he mentioned.
After studying of her marriage-referral system in a newspaper article, the fee investigated and issued a public warning in opposition to her in 2019. As an alternative of requesting an attraction listening to by the Particular Courtroom of Overview, she sued beneath the free-speech clause and the Texas Spiritual Freedom Restoration Act.
Justice Hecht mentioned Choose Hensley wasn’t required to ask for an attraction listening to earlier than submitting her lawsuit.
“The SCR couldn’t have lastly determined whether or not Hensley is entitled to the reduction sought on this case or awarded the reduction TRFRA offers whether it is decided that her declare has benefit,” he mentioned within the ruling. “Nor may the SCR have mooted Hensley’s TRFRA declare. Hensley was not required to additional exhaust her treatment by attraction to a courtroom that would not afford her the reduction TRFRA offers to profitable claimants earlier than suing in a courtroom that may.
#Breaking: Waco choose can sue over reprimand for not marrying homosexual {couples}, Texas Supreme Courtroom guidelines.
Story by @tosibamowo:
Some extra background on the JP on this case: #txlege
— Lauren McGaughy (@lmcgaughy) June 28, 2024
In a quick assertion, Choose Hensley mentioned Friday that “I’m really grateful to the Supreme Courtroom for giving me the chance to proceed to face for spiritual liberty and the rule of legislation.”
Justice Debra Lehrmann mentioned in her dissenting opinion that the courtroom “erroneously minimizes the influence {that a} choice of the Particular Courtroom of Overview (SCR) … may have had on the claims being pursued right here.”
“A devoted software of our precedent results in the conclusion that exhaustion of administrative cures was a jurisdictional prerequisite to this swimsuit,” Justice Lehrmann mentioned.
In a concurring opinion, Justice James Blaylock mentioned the excessive courtroom ought to have instantly dominated that the fee lacked the authority to sanction judges who refer same-sex {couples} to different officiants.
“Obergefell gave same-sex {couples} a proper to marriage,” he mentioned, joined by Justice John Devine. “It didn’t give same-sex {couples} a proper to coerce a choose with spiritual objections to officiate same-sex weddings. Nor did it give the Texas Judicial Conduct Fee the fitting to punish a Christian choose who politely directs same-sex {couples} down the road.”
