IN RE: GATEWAY CHURCH (2026)

CONCURRING OPINION

We open the Court's opinion by observing that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is grounded in the First Amendment. I write separately to note my understanding that the doctrine is also grounded in Article I, section 6 of the Texas Constitution. Then-Justice Blacklock hinted at the application of the state charter in his concurrence to In re Lubbock, 624 S.W.3d 506, 514, 520 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (Blacklock, J., concurring) (“Both the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution compel judges to acknowledge that there are places where our imperfect judicial system does not belong, places where earthly judges have no power.”). It appears the Texas Constitution provides even broader protection to ecclesiastical bodies than is provided by the First Amendment. Compare “No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion” to “Congress shall make no law ․ prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” We have previously noted the greater protections provided by our state charter. See Ex parte Herrera, No. 05-14-00598-CR, 2014 WL 4207153, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 26, 2014, no pet.) (“The Texas Constitution provides greater protections for the free exercise of one's religion than does the federal constitution.”).

Relators assert that the freedom-of-worship clause provides an additional, independent basis for mandamus relief. Lubbock was decided, however, on a federal constitutional basis. Because Lubbock controls our decision, we have no need to determine whether Article I, section 6 provides an additional reason for abstention or the extent to which it requires abstention. In a case not so clearly controlled by Lubbock, we may find a need to consider the breadth of Article I, section 6.

MIKE LEE JUSTICE