Texas Justice Wins $640,000 Following Religious Freedom Case

Texas justice of the peace, Dianne Hensley, has been awarded over $640,000 after facing disciplinary action for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs. This decision is seen as a triumph for religious freedom.

Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute, remarked on the significance of the court ruling in an interview with Fox News Digital, emphasizing the importance of allowing people of faith to decline participation in actions that conflict with their religious values.

First Liberty Institute announced that the court awarded Judge Hensley $10,000 in damages, citing a violation of her religious freedom rights under Texas law. Additionally, the District Court of Travis County ordered the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to cover approximately $630,000 in attorneys’ fees incurred by Hensley.

Despite her decision to avoid officiating same-sex weddings, Hensley established a referral system, ensuring that couples could access wedding services from other officiants without incurring extra costs or delays. Sasser praised Hensley’s approach, summarizing her efforts as both an exercise in religious faith and as a means of being a good neighbor.

Hensley’s challenges began in 2018 when the State Commission on Judicial Conduct warned her of potential actions against her for continuing to officiate weddings while declining same-sex ceremonies. Sasser explained the importance of fighting for Hensley’s right to provide public service without compromising her beliefs.

Recent changes include amendments by the Texas Supreme Court to accommodate religious practices, along with state legislative reforms to the commission’s structure, aimed at preventing similar situations in the future.

Hensley expressed gratitude for the legal victory, stating that her goal was to serve her community while maintaining her faith. Her case has restored religious liberty after an eight-year struggle.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct chose not to comment on the matter.