Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6: Difference between revisions

(27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 5:

|editor=

Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion. This section is the most expansive of those sections. Among other things, it guarantees individual religious freedom and prohibits discrimination between religious denominations. Despite its breadth, the section has been the subject of relatively few court decisions. Moreover, since roughly the 1950s, Texas state courts have routinely relied on the federal constitution rather than the state constitution in resolving suits involving the interaction of state government and religion. However, it should be noted that the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area of the law has been heavily criticized.

Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion. This section is the most expansive of those sections. Among other things, it guarantees individual religious freedom and prohibits discrimination between religious denominations. Despite its breadth, the section has been the subject of relatively few court decisions. Moreover, since roughly the 1950s, Texas state courts have routinely relied on the federal constitution rather than the state constitution when resolving suits involving the interaction of state government and religion. However, it should be noted that the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area of the law has been heavily criticized.

Due either to the plain language of the provision or to state court decisions interpreting the provision, the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the state constitution sometimes differs from the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the federal constitution. For example, "opening exercises" in public school classrooms that include the reading of a Bible passage and the recital of the Lord's Prayer do not violate this section. However, such practices violate the federal constitution. See ''Abington School District v. Schempp'', 374 U.S. 203, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143#p225 225] (1963) ("They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment . . . .").

Line 11:

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."

And also note that it is ~~substantively~~ 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."

And also note that it is textually 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."

|recent=

* ''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.")

* ''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).")

* ''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.")

* ''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.")

* ''HEB Ministries, Inc. v. Texas Higher Educ. Coordinating Bd.'', 235 S.W.3d 627, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=517806966840097315#p642 642] (Tex. 2007) (footnotes omitted) ("The Establishment Clause prohibits . . . . Correspondingly, article I, section 6 of the Texas Constitution states that 'no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society'. We have referred to this provision and article I, section 7 as 'Texas' equivalent of the Establishment Clause.' The parties do not argue that there is any difference in the application of these federal and state constitutional provisions to this case, and we will assume for present purposes that they are coextensive.")

Line 34:

Line 38:

|seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship")

|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, ~~freedom of religion~~, school prayer

|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, religious liberty, school prayer

|seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

|seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights

Line 41:

Line 45:

[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]

[[Category:Religion Law]]

[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |editor=
-Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion. This section is the most expansive of those sections. Among other things, it guarantees individual religious freedom and prohibits discrimination between religious denominations. Despite its breadth, the section has been the subject of relatively few court decisions. Moreover, since roughly the 1950s, Texas state courts have routinely relied on the federal constitution rather than the state constitution in resolving suits involving the interaction of state government and religion. However, it should be noted that the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area of the law has been heavily criticized.
+Sections 4 through 7 of Article I, including the recently adopted Section [[Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 6-a|6-a]], concern religion. This section is the most expansive of those sections. Among other things, it guarantees individual religious freedom and prohibits discrimination between religious denominations. Despite its breadth, the section has been the subject of relatively few court decisions. Moreover, since roughly the 1950s, Texas state courts have routinely relied on the federal constitution rather than the state constitution when resolving suits involving the interaction of state government and religion. However, it should be noted that the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area of the law has been heavily criticized.
 Due either to the plain language of the provision or to state court decisions interpreting the provision, the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the state constitution sometimes differs from the substance of the provisions concerning religion contained in the federal constitution. For example, "opening exercises" in public school classrooms that include the reading of a Bible passage and the recital of the Lord's Prayer do not violate this section. However, such practices violate the federal constitution. See ''Abington School District v. Schempp'', 374 U.S. 203, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143#p225 225] (1963) ("They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment . . . .").
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 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."
-And also note that it is substantively 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."
+And also note that it is textually 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."
 |recent=
-* ''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.")
+* ''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).")
+* ''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.")
+* ''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.")
 * ''HEB Ministries, Inc. v. Texas Higher Educ. Coordinating Bd.'', 235 S.W.3d 627, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=517806966840097315#p642 642] (Tex. 2007) (footnotes omitted) ("The Establishment Clause prohibits . . . . Correspondingly, article I, section 6 of the Texas Constitution states that 'no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society'. We have referred to this provision and article I, section 7 as 'Texas' equivalent of the Establishment Clause.' The parties do not argue that there is any difference in the application of these federal and state constitutional provisions to this case, and we will assume for present purposes that they are coextensive.")
@@ Line 34: / Line 38: @@
 |seo_title=Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution ("Freedom of Worship")
-|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, freedom of religion, school prayer
+|seo_keywords=Article 1 Section 6, religious liberty, school prayer
 |seo_description=All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
 |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights
@@ Line 41: / Line 45: @@
 [[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]]
+[[Category:Religion Law]]
 [[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]]