Texas’s New Judicial Ethics Rule on Wedding Officiation: What It Really Means

On October 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas quietly made an important change to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The court added a new comment under Canon 4 stating that a judge does not violate the canons simply by refusing to perform a wedding ceremony if that refusal is based on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

In practical terms, this means a Texas judge who chooses not to officiate same-sex weddings—while still performing weddings for opposite-sex couples—cannot be disciplined by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for bias under the code. The rule took effect immediately and has already stirred conversation throughout the legal community.

Officiating Weddings: A Judicial Role or a Personal Choice?

Texas law allows judges to officiate weddings, but it doesn’t require them to do so. Performing weddings is considered an extra-judicial activity—something judges may do outside their normal courtroom duties.

Until now, a judge who refused to officiate certain weddings risked being accused of showing bias or partiality under Canon 4. The new comment clarifies that when a refusal is grounded in religion, it does not automatically violate the ethical standards for judges.

It’s important to understand what this rule doesn’t do. It doesn’t change the law of marriage in Texas. Same-sex marriage remains legal under Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision. What the Texas Supreme Court did was draw a boundary line for its own ethics system: judicial discipline will not be used to punish judges who decline to officiate weddings on religious grounds.

The Path to the Rule Change

This change didn’t come out of nowhere. It has roots in two closely watched cases.

First came Judge Dianne Hensley of Waco. In 2019, the Judicial Conduct Commission warned her that refusing to marry same-sex couples violated Canon 4’s impartiality requirement. She sued the Commission, arguing that the warning punished her for exercising her religious freedom. The Texas Supreme Court later allowed her case to move forward, signaling that the issue wasn’t as clear-cut as many thought.

Then came Jack County Judge Brian Umphress. He, too, refused to officiate same-sex weddings and filed suit in federal court, arguing that the canons themselves infringed on his religious rights. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals eventually asked the Texas Supreme Court to clarify whether the canons actually prohibited what Umphress was doing. The new comment appears to answer that question: under Texas ethics rules, such refusals are not misconduct.

What the Amendment Actually Does

The amended comment acts as a kind of safe harbor within the Texas judicial ethics system. It tells judges that they won’t face disciplinary action simply for following their faith when deciding whether to perform weddings.

But this isn’t a blanket immunity. It doesn’t protect judges—or anyone else—from potential lawsuits under federal law if their conduct is found to discriminate against same-sex couples in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The ethics rule only governs how Texas’s own disciplinary bodies will treat this kind of refusal. It doesn’t rewrite constitutional law or create new rights.

The Line Between Discretion and Discrimination

In Texas, officiating a marriage is a matter of discretion. A judge can choose to perform weddings, perform none at all, or perform only some types. The new comment makes clear that this choice, when based on sincere religious belief, doesn’t automatically signal bias or prejudice for purposes of judicial discipline.

Still, if a judge routinely performs weddings for some couples but refuses others based solely on sexual orientation, that could raise questions under federal Equal Protection or Due Process principles. Whether officiating is a personal act or a governmental one remains an open question—and one that may ultimately be tested in future litigation.

How This Affects Couples and Courts

For couples, the practical effect may be minimal. Texas law provides many options for officiants—judges, justices of the peace, clergy, and others. If one officiant declines, another can usually be found quickly. But in smaller counties with only one or two available judges, refusals could create delays or inconvenience that prompt further legal challenges.

For the judiciary, the amendment provides clarity where there was uncertainty. Judges now have official guidance that their religious objections won’t, by themselves, be treated as an ethics violation. Whether that stability leads to peace or more litigation remains to be seen.

Looking Ahead

The Fifth Circuit will still need to address the pending Umphress case, and the Hensley lawsuit continues to move through the Texas courts. Both could shape how far religious-liberty arguments extend in the context of judicial conduct.

The amendment also comes under new leadership. Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who was elevated earlier this year, has previously written favorably about Hensley’s right to exercise her faith while noting that no same-sex couples had complained of being denied service. His views, and those of the court he now leads, suggest that this area of law may continue evolving for years to come.

Why Family-Law Practitioners Should Care

Although this rule doesn’t directly affect divorce, custody, or property division, it reveals how Texas’s highest court is thinking about the tension between personal belief and public duty—an issue that surfaces in many family-law contexts. Understanding where that boundary lies helps lawyers anticipate how similar conflicts might be resolved when questions of conscience meet questions of law.

As always, the key takeaway is that ethics rules, constitutional rights, and family-law realities are all part of the same conversation in Texas. This amendment may seem narrow, but it signals how our state’s courts continue to navigate the line between personal faith and public service.

Need legal guidance? If you have questions about how this development could affect your case or your rights in a Texas family-law matter, visit our Free Consultation page to schedule an appointment with The Palmer Law Firm.