https://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Texas_Constitution%3AArticle_I%2C_Section_6Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6 - Revision history2026-08-22T02:52:09ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.44.5https://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=9070&oldid=prevAdmin at 12:56, October 28, 20252025-10-28T12:56:11Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 07:56, October 28, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Dep’t </del>of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Dep't </ins>of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p717 717] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p717 717] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key tlgonline06282023:diff:1.41:old-9062:rev-9070:php=table -->
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=9062&oldid=prevAdmin at 00:15, October 28, 20252025-10-28T00:15:56Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:15, October 27, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l17">Line 17:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 17:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">p--- ___</del>] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">p717 717</ins>] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=9061&oldid=prevAdmin at 00:13, October 28, 20252025-10-28T00:13:03Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:13, October 27, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l14">Line 14:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 14:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', 715 S.W.3d 709, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></del></div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</del></div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=9059&oldid=prevAdmin at 00:05, October 28, 20252025-10-28T00:05:21Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:05, October 27, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">___ </del>S.W.3d <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">___</del>, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">715 </ins>S.W.3d <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">709</ins>, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=8984&oldid=prevAdmin at 14:34, October 25, 20252025-10-25T14:34:33Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 09:34, October 25, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l11">Line 11:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 11:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This section is derived from the 1845 Texas Constitution, which provided: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or mode of worship; but it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public worship."</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This section is derived from the 1845 Texas Constitution, which provided: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or mode of worship; but it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of their own mode of public worship."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>And also note that it is <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">substantively </del>similar to the provisions concerning religion contained in the early state constitutions of Pennsylvania (1790), Tennessee (1796), and Kentucky (1799). For example, the Kentucky Declaration of Rights provided: "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or modes of worship."</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>And also note that it is <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">textually </ins>similar to the provisions concerning religion contained in the early state constitutions of Pennsylvania (1790), Tennessee (1796), and Kentucky (1799). For example, the Kentucky Declaration of Rights provided: "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious societies or modes of worship."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l38">Line 38:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 38:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">freedom of religion</del>, school prayer</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">religious liberty</ins>, school prayer</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=8983&oldid=prevAdmin at 21:11, October 24, 20252025-10-24T21:11:17Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 16:11, October 24, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l14">Line 14:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 14:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Juris. Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></del></div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</del></div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert'', 264 S.W.3d 1, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5305447475925079813#p2 2] (Tex. 2008) ("This appeal concerns the tension between a church's right to protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a church member's right to judicial redress under a claim for intentional tort. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . We further conclude the case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine and, accordingly, reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss the case.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=8982&oldid=prevAdmin at 20:59, October 24, 20252025-10-24T20:59:30Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:59, October 24, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Jurisdictional </del>Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Juris. </ins>Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p508 508] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=8981&oldid=prevAdmin at 20:57, October 24, 20252025-10-24T20:57:45Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:57, October 24, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Jurisdictional Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">p500 500</del>] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Finally, and briefly, </del>I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''SMU v. S. Cent. Jurisdictional Conf. of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">p508 508</ins>] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=8980&oldid=prevAdmin at 20:54, October 24, 20252025-10-24T20:54:18Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:54, October 24, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">S. Methodist Univ. </del>v. S. Cent. Jurisdictional <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Conference </del>of <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">the </del>United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#<del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">p--- ___</del>] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("Finally, and briefly, I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">SMU </ins>v. S. Cent. Jurisdictional <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Conf. </ins>of United Methodist Church'', 716 S.W.3d 475, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">p500 500</ins>] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("Finally, and briefly, I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Adminhttps://texaslegalguide.com/index.php?title=Texas_Constitution:Article_I,_Section_6&diff=8979&oldid=prevAdmin at 20:52, October 24, 20252025-10-24T20:52:05Z<p></p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:52, October 24, 2025</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l15">Line 15:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 15:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|recent=</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''</div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''<ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">S. Methodist Univ. v. S. Cent. Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church</ins>'', <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">716 </ins>S.W.3d <ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">475</ins>, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p--- ___] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("Finally, and briefly, I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'', <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">___ </del>S.W.3d <del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">___</del>, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14056762347756447748#p--- ___] (Tex. 2025) (Young, concurring) ("Finally, and briefly, I turn to the question that in the end may prove most consequential: Given the Texas Constitution's distinct language and history, is its church-autonomy doctrine meaningfully different from its federal counterpart? As with other important constitutional guarantees, the answer is: 'We still do not really know, even as we approach the sesquicentennial of our current Constitution.' ''Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC'', 647 S.W.3d 648, 664 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring).")</div></td><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-added"></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* ''Perez v. City of San Antonio'', ___ S.W.3d ___, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3463690842371194617#p--- ___] n.9 (Tex. 2025) ("We have also applied strict scrutiny to the Texas Constitution's Freedom of Worship Clause, which is original to the 1876 Texas Constitution and provides in part: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' and '. . . .' Tex. Const. art. I, § 6. For want of arguments to the contrary, we have assumed that the Freedom of Worship Clause provides protection that is 'coextensive' with the federal Free Exercise Clause and thus requires a strict-scrutiny analysis.")</div></td></tr>
</table>Admin