The Texas Supreme Court ruled that judges may publicly refuse to perform same-sex weddings for religious reasons while continuing to officiate opposite-sex ceremonies, answering a certified question from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in *Brian Keith Umphress v. Gary L. Steel* (Tex. 2025).
The case arose when the Fifth Circuit certified a specific question to the Texas high court: "Does Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct [concerning a judge's extra-judicial activities] prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings?"
In a per curiam opinion issued Jan. 9, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court answered definitively: no. The court's ruling came after it adopted a clarifying comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct on Oct. 24, 2025.
The underlying dispute centers on Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which governs judges' extra-judicial activities. The canon generally requires judges to conduct themselves in ways that maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary. However, the scope of this provision regarding wedding ceremonies had been unclear.
To resolve the ambiguity, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a specific comment to Canon 4 stating: "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." This clarification directly addressed the certified question from the Fifth Circuit.
The case involves Brian Keith Umphress as appellant and Gary L. Steel, in his official capacity as chair of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, among the appellees. The procedural posture indicates this matter originated in federal court before the Fifth Circuit sought guidance on Texas state law.
Certified questions represent a procedural mechanism allowing federal courts to seek authoritative interpretations of state law from state supreme courts when the law is unclear. The Fifth Circuit's certification suggests federal judges recognized the need for definitive guidance on how Texas judicial conduct rules apply to wedding ceremonies.
The Texas Supreme Court's solicitation of briefing from the parties and acceptance of amicus curiae briefs indicates the court recognized the broader implications of the question. Multiple interested parties submitted briefs, suggesting the issue attracted attention from various stakeholders including religious liberty organizations, civil rights groups, and judicial conduct experts.
The court's ruling establishes that Texas judges may exercise religious conscience exemptions when it comes to performing wedding ceremonies. This means judges can publicly state they will not perform same-sex weddings due to religious beliefs while continuing to officiate opposite-sex ceremonies without violating judicial conduct rules.
The decision addresses the intersection of religious liberty protections and judicial obligations. While judges must generally perform their official duties without discrimination, the court determined that wedding ceremonies fall into a category where religious exemptions apply.
The timing of the court's actions is noteworthy. The clarifying comment was adopted in October 2025, followed by the formal opinion in January 2025, suggesting the court moved expeditiously to resolve the certified question. This timeline indicates the urgency the court placed on providing clarity to both federal courts and Texas judges.
The ruling affects how Canon 4A(1) will be interpreted and enforced going forward. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct, led by Gary L. Steel as chair, must now apply this interpretation when evaluating complaints against judges regarding wedding ceremony practices.
For practicing judges, the decision provides clear guidance that public statements about religious objections to same-sex wedding ceremonies will not trigger judicial conduct violations. This removes potential uncertainty that may have affected judges' willingness to state their positions publicly.
The federal court context adds another layer of significance. The Fifth Circuit's need to certify this question suggests similar issues may arise in other cases involving the intersection of federal civil rights law and state judicial conduct rules.
The per curiam nature of the opinion indicates unanimous agreement among the Texas Supreme Court justices, though individual justices' reasoning is not detailed in the brief ruling. The concise format focuses solely on answering the certified question without extensive legal analysis.
Looking ahead, this interpretation will guide judicial conduct enforcement in Texas and may influence similar discussions in other states with comparable judicial conduct provisions. The decision clarifies one aspect of how religious liberty protections apply within the judicial system while maintaining the broader framework of judicial ethics rules.
The ruling resolves the immediate certified question while establishing precedent for future cases involving judges' religious objections to official duties. This balance between religious conscience rights and judicial obligations represents the court's attempt to navigate competing constitutional and ethical principles within Texas's judicial framework.