Umphress v. Hall, 133 F.4th 455

Brian Umphress, a Texas county judge, declines on religious grounds to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings, similar to another judge, Dianne Hensley.
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct had previously warned Hensley under Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges not to call their impartiality into question through extra-judicial activities.
Umphress sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, alleging the Canon’s enforcement is unconstitutional as applied to judges refusing to perform same-sex weddings.
The district court dismissed Umphress's claims for lack of standing and ripeness and, alternatively, indicated it would abstain under the Pullman doctrine.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found Umphress had standing, his claims were ripe, and abstention was not appropriate due to ongoing uncertainty in state court proceedings; the court certified a determinative state-law question to the Supreme Court of Texas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	Umphress faces a credible threat of discipline that chills his constitutional rights.	No disciplinary action pending; injury too speculative.	Umphress has standing: imminent injury based on credible threat.
Ripeness	Challenge is fit for adjudication; issues are legal and hardship exists.	Claims not ripe because threat is not immediate.	Claims are ripe: purely legal issue, hardship shown.
Mootness (post-rescission of Hensley warning)	Rescission does not guarantee future enforcement won’t occur.	Warning withdrawn; no longer a live controversy.	Not moot: threat of enforcement remains, case is live.
Pullman Abstention	State courts unlikely to resolve core Canon issue on the merits; federal court should decide.	State law question should be resolved first in state courts.	Abstention declined; certified question to Texas Supreme Court.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court recognized constitutional right to same-sex marriage)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (standard for pre-enforcement First Amendment standing)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U.S. 617 (protected status of religious objections to same-sex marriage)
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (First Amendment protection for religious exercise)
R.R. Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (Pullman abstention doctrine for unclear state law issues)
Babbitt v. Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (pre-enforcement challenge to statutes regulating conduct)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (state’s compelling interest in judicial impartiality)