The District Court of Travis County, Texas, would make one of the great Founding Fathers proud.
According to the conservative law firm First Liberty Institute, and in a decision that honored one of James Madison’s core principles, the court ruled that Texas’ State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) owes $10,000 in compensatory damages and $630,000 in attorneys’ fees for violating Judge Dianne Hensley’s freedom of conscience under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The ruling thus “vindicated” Hensley, a Christian who recused herself from performing same-sex weddings.
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, which represented Hensley, celebrated the ruling.
“Judge Hensley always adhered to the law and the legal guidance provided by the Attorney General of Texas,” Sasser said. “We are grateful that this case has concluded and that Judge Hensley was vindicated.”
In truth, Hensley behaved exactly as a Christian judge should.
Do you believe the Supreme Court should overturn its own ruling that declared gay marriage constitutional?
For instance, while recusing herself personally from performing same-sex weddings, Hensley nonetheless put together a referral list of local officiants who would perform such ceremonies.
Still, that did not satisfy the SCJC, which sanctioned her by issuing a “Public Warning.” Hensley then sued the SCJC and others for violating her freedom of conscience.
A district court in Texas has awarded a substantial financial victory to a state judge who objected to performing same-sex weddings that would violate her Christian faith.
Judge Dianne Hensley won a big financial award for attorney fees and damages in her lawsuit against the… pic.twitter.com/CLgbgeLYAV
— CBN News (@CBNNews) June 23, 2026
According to the Texas-focused news outlet Chron, the legal odyssey that began with the SCJC’s public warning in 2019 made its way to the Texas Supreme Court, which, in 2024, ruled that the suit could go forward.
In that 2024 opinion, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock noted that no same-sex couples had complained about Hensley.
“I find it encouraging that we have no indication any same-sex couple even considered handling the situation that way. What decent person would? Judge Hensley treated them respectfully,” Blacklock wrote. “They got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win.”
Likewise, in a phone interview with Chron, Sasser extolled his client’s behavior.
“She was modeling the way religious liberty works in this country, which is that we’re not going to make people do stuff that violates their religious beliefs,” the conservative attorney said. “We should reward the people who are still exercising their religious beliefs and opting out of things, but doing so in a way where they’re being a good neighbor.”
Hensley has indeed upheld the law without violating her Christian conscience. But she has also launched a bid to change that law.
In December, the Waco-based judge filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects gay couples’ right to marry.
That legal battle, of course, is for another day. In the meantime, the District Court ruling reminded us of what the father of the U.S. Constitution intended.
A full account of Madison’s constitutional reasoning and views on religious liberty would require a book-length treatment. But one example should suffice for the purposes of illustration.
On June 8, 1789, as a member of the House of Representatives, Madison presented a very early draft of the Bill of Rights.
For what eventually became the Second Amendment, Madison proposed the following: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Congress ultimately left the question of conscientious objection to the states. But the Madisonian principle that places freedom of conscience above collective demands, even above the demands of communal defense, remains alive and well, especially in Texas.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
