Texas Supreme Court justice chastises judicial conduct commission

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock has issued another chastisement, this time against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. He did so in a response clarifying that judges in Texas are not violating the law when they refuse to marry same-sex couples. 

At issue before two courts, the Austin Court of Appeals in Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, is whether Texas judges can legally refrain from performing a same-sex couple’s wedding because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Texas Supreme Court provided a response to the Fifth Circuit last month in a case before it stating they are not violating the law if they refrain from doing so. 

Two judges sued the SCJC after it officially reprimanded them for declining to marry same-sex couples, arguing the reprimand was unconstitutional. State law does not require judges to officiate marriages.

As the cases proceeded, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order last October clarifying that judges are permitted from refraining to officiate such marriages, The Center Square reported. All eight justices signed the order to add a comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, 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.”

The SCJC also filed motions for partial summary judgment, asking the courts to dismiss lawsuits filed against it, arguing the Texas Supreme Court’s comment didn’t apply to its reprimands. The Fifth Circuit asked the Texas Supreme Court to clarify. The court replied stating, “the answer to the certified question is no.”

The SCJC wasn’t satisfied with the answer and filed a Motion for Clarification. The Texas Supreme Court denied the motion instead of dismissing it as out of order, Blacklock explained. He then ripped into the commission in his response. 

“I gather from the motion that the Commission must believe the Court did not carefully read and understand the question certified by the Fifth Circuit. Rest assured, we did. The certified question, which we reproduced verbatim in our per curiam opinion, was: Does Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings?” he said.

“The answer to this question, which we gave as directly and as plainly as can be given in the English language, is ‘no.’ … (‘Accordingly, the answer to the certified question is no.’). Only a lawyer could fail to appreciate the decisive clarity of so simple and useful a word as ‘no.’”

His chastisement continued. 

“The insufficiency of a court’s explanation of its answer in the mind of the losing party has nothing to do with the clarity of the court’s answer. There is no clearer answer than ‘no.’ In any event, the Court obviously thinks its explanation sufficient to justify its answer. Otherwise, we would not have given it,” Blacklock wrote.

“The Court’s one-word answer to the certified question (yes, the entire certified question) is as far from needing clarification as it is possible for any answer to be.”

Blacklock was reelected in 2024 after issuing another chastisement to former Attorney General Eric Holder.

At the time, an organization led by Holder began targeting Texas Supreme Court justices after taking credit for flipping the Wisconsin Supreme Court as part of its 2031 redistricting project, The Center Square reported.

Holder, the first U.S. attorney general in history to be held in criminal and civil contempt by Congress, began targeting Blacklock and two other Republican justices up for reelection. He argued Republicans in Texas are racist and Democrats need to be in control of redistricting.

The Texas Supreme Court is the highest court in Texas that rules on civil cases. Every general election, three seats are on the ballot.

In response to being targeted, Blacklock told The Center Square, “Eric Holder apparently wants judges who will not follow the laws passed by our legislature if he doesn't like those laws. He seems to want judges that will amend our constitution by judicial decree rather than allowing the people of Texas to amend their constitution if they choose to, but that's not how this works, and he should know that.

“A judge's job is to follow the law passed by the legislature, not to change the law. A judge's job is to follow the constitution, not to change it. The legislature can change the laws that it has passed, and the people of Texas can change the constitution but that's not a judge's job.”

Blacklock also said Holder was insulting all justices serving on the bench as well as Democratic challengers “because it suggests that a judge's job is to deliver results for a political party and that is absolutely not a judge's job.

“That is not what anybody on the Texas Supreme Court is doing. Our job is to apply the law fairly and equally for all Texans regardless of who they are, regardless of their background, regardless of their political party. The court's job is to deliver equal justice for everybody.”

Blacklock was first elected in 2018. He and the Republican justices Holder targeted were reelected with nearly 60% of the vote in 2024, The Center Square reported. Blacklock became chief justice last January.