The Texas Supreme Court has added a comment to the state’s judicial conduct code, clarifying that judges can decline to perform wedding ceremonies based on sincerely held religious beliefs without violating rules on judicial impartiality. This change, effective immediately, may have implications for gay marriage and a pending federal lawsuit. The modification amends Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which addresses impartiality, in response to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals inquiry spurred by a case involving a judge’s refusal to marry same-sex couples. The court’s clarification seemingly addresses concerns raised in the lawsuit, offering protection for judges with religious objections.
Read More
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has initiated legal action to remove from office Democratic lawmakers who have left the state to obstruct the redrawing of electoral boundaries. The governor filed a lawsuit with the Texas Supreme Court, specifically targeting Democratic legislator Gene Wu, whom he views as a key figure in the situation. This action seeks to force the return of absent legislators and enable a vote on redistricting, which could create additional Republican-leaning seats. The governor argues the lawmakers’ departure constitutes an abandonment of their duty and the court’s decision will determine whether a minority can dictate the outcome for all Texans.
Read More
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that lifetime protective orders separating parents from their children require a higher burden of proof, specifically “clear and convincing evidence,” mirroring the standard for terminating parental rights. This decision reverses a lower court’s lifetime order against Christine Stary, preventing her from seeing her children since 2020. The court found that such lengthy orders, significantly impacting a parent’s fundamental rights, necessitate this heightened evidentiary standard to ensure due process. The case will now be reheard under the corrected legal standard.
Read More
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a legislative subpoena cannot halt a scheduled execution, allowing Robert Roberson’s execution to proceed. While the Court acknowledged the House committee’s right to seek Roberson’s testimony, it stipulated that the subpoena must not inherently block the execution. Lawmakers maintain their intent to gather Roberson’s testimony regarding his 2002 conviction for his daughter’s death, citing a 2013 law allowing challenges based on advances in forensic science. The Attorney General’s office, however, disputes the lawmakers’ claims, and the timing and manner of any further attempts to obtain testimony remain unclear.
Read More
As a woman living in the United States, recent events surrounding the Texas Supreme Court’s decision to reject a challenge to the state’s abortion law have left me feeling not just disappointed, but deeply concerned about the direction our country is heading in terms of women’s rights and healthcare. The fact that this all-Republican court unanimously upheld a law that directly impacts the lives of women, denying them the right to obtain an abortion even in cases of serious pregnancy complications, is not just a blow to reproductive freedom, but a dangerous erosion of basic human rights.
The argument that the law’s exceptions are broad enough and that doctors would be misinterpreting it by declining to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger is not just flawed but utterly ludicrous.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker