# Umphress v. Gary L. Steel Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0288 **Umphress v. Gary L. Steel, No. 25-0288 (Tex. Jan. 9, 2026). Holding: The answer to the certified question is no: Canon 4A(1) does not prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings.** Practice areas: legal ethics, federal constitution ## Key issues - Answering a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Court held that Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit judges from publicly declining, for sincerely held religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while performing opposite-sex weddings. - The answer rests on an October 24, 2025 order adding a comment to Canon 4 that says refraining from performing a wedding based on a sincerely held religious belief is not a violation; a later motion for clarification, treated as rehearing, was denied. ## Factual History Brian Keith Umphress is a county judge in Jack County who is a Christian and does not officiate at same-sex wedding ceremonies because of his religious beliefs, while he continues to perform opposite-sex weddings (Brief on the Merits (Appellant in case), PDF p. 15). In November 2019 the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley for refusing to officiate at same-sex weddings and referring such couples to other officiants, and Umphress says that exposed him to potential discipline (Brief on the Merits (Appellant in case), PDF pp. 14-15). The Commission (the appellees) later withdrew the Hensley warning after this Court's 2024 decision in *Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct*, but the Fifth Circuit noted it had not disclaimed any intention to discipline Umphress (Brief on the Merits (Appellee in case), PDF pp. 16-17). ## Procedural History This is a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Umphress sued the Commissioners in federal district court claiming the First Amendment protects his right to officiate only at opposite-sex weddings; the district court dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness, and in April 2025 the Fifth Circuit reversed and, instead of abstaining, certified a question of Texas law to this Court (Brief on the Merits (Appellant in case), PDF pp. 15, 25; Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). The Court solicited briefing from the parties and received amicus briefs, and on October 24, 2025, it adopted a comment to Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1-2). It answered the question by per curiam opinion on January 9, 2026 (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 2). The Commission then filed a "Motion for Clarification," which the Court construed as a motion for rehearing and denied on February 20, 2026, with Chief Justice Blacklock concurring in the denial (Blacklock, C.J., concurring, PDF pp. 1, 3). ## Issues Presented The certified question is whether Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). Canon 4A(1) requires a judge to conduct extra-judicial activities so they do not "cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge" (Reply Brief (Appellant in case), PDF p. 8). ## Standard(s) of Review The Court answers a certified question as a question of Texas law under article V, Section 3-c of the Texas Constitution and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 58.1 (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). The Commission says the test for whether impartiality may reasonably be questioned is objective, asking how the conduct appears to a reasonable observer, not what the judge subjectively believes (Brief on the Merits (Appellee in case), PDF p. 15). ## Legal Arguments **Whether refusing to perform same-sex weddings violates Canon 4A(1).** **Appellant (Judge Umphress):** The law of Texas does not allow the Commission to discipline a judge for refusing to perform same-sex weddings, whether the reason is religious or secular; a judge who does so has not cast reasonable doubt on his impartiality, because disapproving of same-sex marriage does not show animus toward individuals or that he will not apply the law impartially, just as a judge who will not perform marriages of divorcees or first cousins has not shown bias (Brief on the Merits (Appellant in case), PDF pp. 26-27). In reply, he argues that same-sex marriage remains illegal under Texas law, that a judge might decline for reasons unrelated to attitudes toward homosexuality, and that disapproval of conduct does not evince bias against a person (Reply Brief (Appellant in case), PDF p. 8). **Appellees (Commission):** The question is solely whether a judge violates Canon 4A(1) by publicly refusing, and by pledging not to conduct same-sex ceremonies while welcoming opposite-sex couples; the test is objective, and Umphress and Hensley rely on subjective, self-serving reasons rather than how their pledges appear to a reasonable observer (Brief on the Merits (Appellee in case), PDF pp. 14-15, 32). They argue that Umphress's contention that Texas law is unchanged by *Obergefell* shows contempt for binding decisions, and that his "disapproval" is coupled with a pledge that treats couples differently (Brief on the Merits (Appellee in case), PDF pp. 30-32). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case The Fifth Circuit certified the question because the Texas-law issue is unresolved and certification was preferable to abstention, and it asked this Court to answer it (Brief on the Merits (Appellant in case), PDF p. 25; Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). ## Practice Area Tags legal-ethics, federal-constitution ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit under article V, Section 3-c of the Texas Constitution and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 58.1; answered per curiam January 9, 2026 (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1-2). ## Amicus Involvement - [Christian Legal Society, et al.](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=33dde004-cda6-40e0-80a1-6f1985160dfa&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=a896a0f2-6051-4c6b-8439-854ba8163af9) filed an amicus brief. - [Pacific Justice Institute and the National Legal Foundation](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=95c60bf5-a996-40a2-bacb-03643fafd04f&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=c9b59e73-68b4-48fc-a355-fc870d6c8064) filed an amicus brief. - [Lorica Institute for Freedom of Expression and Religion](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=ec1a5021-c647-4a62-8fb7-de6066ca54ea&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=9445a067-484b-4d95-90fa-c2609196178b) filed an amicus brief. - [The Honorable Dianne Hensley](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=33dabf8e-c34a-460c-a3e9-b9a62065e02a&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=31488f6a-0209-4afa-9337-3f3b4c8793e3) filed an amicus brief. ## Holding The answer to the certified question is no: Canon 4A(1) does not prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1-2). ## Court's Reasoning The Court's opinion consists of its answer and one reason: in an order issued October 24, 2025, it adopted a comment to Canon 4 clarifying that "[i]t 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," and "[a]ccordingly, the answer to the certified question is no" (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1-2). It did not otherwise explain its answer. **Concurrence in the denial of rehearing (Chief Justice Blacklock).** The Commission's motion was styled a "Motion for Clarification," which the appellate rules do not authorize, and it lacked a certificate of conference, but the Court construed it as a motion for rehearing and denied it (Blacklock, C.J., concurring, PDF p. 1). He wrote that the Court understood the question, which it reproduced verbatim, and that its answer, "no," could not be clearer, and that the Commission's view that the explanation is insufficient has nothing to do with the clarity of the answer (Blacklock, C.J., concurring, PDF pp. 2-3). ## Disposition Certified question answered no; the Commission's motion for clarification, treated as a motion for rehearing, was denied on February 20, 2026 (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 2; Blacklock, C.J., concurring, PDF pp. 1, 3). ## Vote Breakdown Per curiam opinion on the certified question; Chief Justice Blacklock filed an opinion concurring in the denial of the motion for rehearing (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1; Blacklock, C.J., concurring, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0288. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.