A lawsuit filed in Waco is reopening a conflict that has simmered for nearly a decade. Whether a Texas justice of the peace can continue performing weddings for opposite-sex couples while declining to officiate same-sex ceremonies because of religious convictions—and whether state disciplinary officials can punish that choice.

The case involves Dianne Hensley, a McLennan County justice of the peace who says her Christian beliefs prevent her from officiating same-sex weddings. In a federal filing dated December 19, 2025, she asks a judge in the Western District of Texas to block members of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct from investigating or disciplining her if she resumes performing opposite-sex ceremonies while continuing to refrain from same-sex ceremonies.   

The new lawsuit arrives after the Supreme Court of Texas added a comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct in October 2025, stating plainly: “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.” 

Hensley’s federal complaint argues that the commission’s interpretation of that comment still leaves her boxed in—permitting a judge to stop performing all weddings, but not to keep performing opposite-sex ceremonies while abstaining from same-sex ceremonies. 

How this started: a pause on weddings, then a return—with a new “referral system”

The story traces back to the period immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision. In a June 2018 response to a commission inquiry, Hensley wrote that she stopped booking weddings for more than a year—between June 26, 2015 and Aug. 1, 2016—because of her religious beliefs, then resumed officiating opposite-sex weddings in part because she believed it was wrong to “inconvenience ninety-nine percent of the population” because she could not “accommodate less than one percent.”   

As public attention grew, she and her staff developed what the filings describe as a referral approach for same-sex couples—directing them to other officiants, including another local justice of the peace, as well as a list of religious and independent options. One attachment, dated June 20, 2018, lays out the wording her office says it provided to couples: “I’m sorry, but Judge Hensley has a sincerely held religious belief as a Christian, and will not be able to perform any same sex weddings.” It then lists a referral to Judge David Pareya and notes other possible venues. 

In the federal complaint, Hensley’s attorneys describe the referral setup in detail, including a nearby wedding chapel run by Shelli Misher, an ordained minister who—according to the filing—agreed to accept referrals and provide a discount so couples referred from Hensley’s office would not pay more than Hensley’s typical $100 fee. The lawsuit claims that no same-sex couple ever complained to the commission about the referral system. 

A “Tentative Public Warning” tied to bias and impartiality

The state’s judicial-conduct agency moved forward anyway. In a January 25, 2019 letter, the commission notified Hensley it had voted to issue a “Tentative Public Warning” after reviewing a complaint and her written responses. The proposed sanction, included with the letter, recounted a 2017 news article that reported she would “only do a wedding between a man and a woman” and had performed dozens of opposite-sex ceremonies after returning to weddings. 

The proposed sanction also emphasized the commission’s concern that refusing same-sex weddings while performing opposite-sex weddings—combined with public comments—could signal bias based on sexual orientation and “cast reasonable doubt” on her capacity to act impartially. In the tentative warning’s conclusions, the commission wrote that her conduct “manifest[ed] a bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation,” and that it could amount to “willful or persistent conduct” inconsistent with judicial duties and damaging to public confidence. The letter gave Hensley a choice to accept the warning or appear before the commission. 

A narrower warning focused on Canon 4A(1)

When the commission issued its final “Public Warning” later in 2019, it did not mirror every allegation from the tentative sanction. According to the federal complaint, after Hensley appeared with counsel and testified, the commission issued a final sanction around November 2019. The federal filing says the final version did not accuse her of violating Canon 3B(6) (the canon addressing bias or prejudice) or the Texas Constitution’s disciplinary provision cited in the tentative warning. Instead, it focused on Canon 4A(1), which governs extra-judicial activities and the appearance of impartiality.  The complaint quotes the warning’s key language: she “should be publicly warned for casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.” 

State court litigation, then a Texas Supreme Court reversal—and a new comment to Canon 4

The federal complaint lays out what happened next. In December 2019, Hensley sued in state court, arguing that the commission’s interpretation of Canon 4A(1) violated protections under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA). A Travis County judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed that decision in 2024 and sent the case back. 

On October 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas adopted a new comment to Canon 4—effective immediately—stating it is not a violation of the canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based on a sincerely held religious belief. The order is signed by Chief Justice James D. Blacklock and the court’s other justices. 

In the federal complaint, Hensley’s attorneys argue that the new comment “disavows and repudiates” the commission’s earlier interpretation and should remove any state-law basis for the commission to act against her or other judges who decline to perform same-sex ceremonies for religious reasons.  But the lawsuit claims the commission is still warning that Hensley cannot return to performing opposite-sex weddings unless she also performs same-sex weddings—reading the new comment as permission to “opt out” of officiating entirely, not to decline only same-sex ceremonies. 

Free Exercise, Free Speech, and a request to stop “continued threats”

The federal complaint frames the dispute as both a religious-liberty issue and a compelled-speech problem. It argues that “officiating a wedding ceremony is speech,” and that the commission’s approach effectively conditions her ability to speak (by conducting weddings) on agreement to perform same-sex ceremonies “in violation of her Christian faith and in violation of Texas law,” according to the filing. 

On the Free Exercise side, the complaint asserts that any ongoing discipline would not be grounded in a neutral, generally applicable rule—especially after the new Canon 4 comment expressly permits the behavior she says she wants to engage in. It asks the federal court to declare constitutional violations and to block future investigations or discipline over her refusal to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies, even if she resumes opposite-sex ceremonies.  The filing also seeks money damages for income the lawsuit says she lost when she stopped performing weddings in response to the commission’s investigation and threatened discipline. 

Who is named, what is requested, and what’s at stake

The lawsuit names the chair, vice chair, and secretary of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, among other commissioners, and it is filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas.  At the end of the federal complaint, the requested relief includes a declaration that commissioners have violated and are violating rights under the Free Exercise Clause and the Speech Clause, an injunction blocking investigation or discipline related to her refusal to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies (even if opposite-sex weddings resume), money damages under federal civil-rights law for lost income, and attorneys’ fees. 

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on a speeding New Braunfels cop.

Or you may find our publishing on a New Braunfels supervisor being disciplined for mishandling a complaint involving a female trainee of interest.

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---