Texas – Constitutional Challenge of No-fault Divorce

June 2, 2026 Bai Macfarlane phones AG

I phoned the Texas Attorney General’s “open government hotline” (877) 673-6839 and left a message asking a question.

During yesterday’s pretrial conference, attorney Weatherspoon said Morgan never filed his constitutional challenge properly.  According to her, the state of Texas must be made a party. From my research, it says that the court must “forward the completed form and a copy of the petition, motion or pleading to the Office of the Attorney General.” I left this voice mail with the Texas Attorney General.

June 1, 2026 Pretrial conference

Jeff Morgan participated in a pre-trial conference that was open to the public via Zoom.  His wife’s lawyer, Ginger Weatherspoon, looked focused in one thing: getting Jeff’s wife the divorce that she wants and getting a trial date on the calendar.

Parties, their lawyers, and viewers waited for the Associate Judge Jean Lee to determine the status of each case and decide what should be scheduled next.  The Associate Judge said this was the first time she looked at the case record. So, she was just then learning about Morgan’s constitutional challenge.

Jeff emphasized that there are ‘threshold’ issues that should be decided prior to any divorce pre-trial, or trial.  He maintains that the court must first rule on his constitutional challenge against no-fault divorce (Tex. Fam. Code § 6.001).

Originally, his wife only filed the no-fault grounds. However, recently his wife’s lawyer added a new complaint, accusing Jeff of cruelty to justify the divorce complaint.  Earlier, Morgan submitted to the court a transcript of a phone recording with Weatherspoon saying that the cruelty to which she is referring is Morgan’s public discussion of no-fault divorce.  Now, Witherspoon said the cruelty is in relation to Morgan’s conduct towards his wife and son.   Morgan has asked the court to strike/drop the new accusation of cruelty.

Today, there was a debate about whether Morgan properly cited/notified the Texas Attorney General. Weatherspoon said Morgan’ improperly made his complaint (as if the court could ignore it for that reason). She said Morgan must make the state of Texas a party to the case.  I think she wants Texas to be a party to the case so the state Attorney General will write a brief protecting all the no-fault divorce lawyers.  Otherwise, she’d have to write her own defense against Morgan’s constitutional challenge.

Morgan says he met his obligation to notify the state of Texas of his challenge, and the Court is obligated to bring in the state of Texas as a party if it thinks it is necessary.  When Morgan made his constitutional challenge, he used the form published by the Texas Judicial Branch for a party challenging the constitutionality of a Texas statute. The website says, “If a party indicates on the form that the Office of the Attorney General is not a party to or counsel in the case, the clerk of the court must forward the completed form and a copy of the petition, motion or pleading to the Office of the Attorney General.”

Because Morgan is asking for a declaration about the statute itself, another section of Texas code applies; “all persons who have or claim any interest that would be affected by the declaration must be made parties” (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.006). The question is whether the state of Texas Attorney General considers itself to have a claim or interest.  The no-fault divorce lawyers certainly have an interest – but they aren’t a party to the case.

The Associate Judge is scheduling a pre-trial hearing on July 14 to address three is issues:
1. Plea to the Jurisdiction – 6.001 unconstitutional.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment – 6.001 unconstitutional.
3. Motion to strike 6.002, etc.

May 19, 2026 Update

On May 15, Jeff Morgan, a divorce defendant, submitted a complaint to the State Bar of Texas against his wife’s lawyer being deliberately dishonest to the court. The lawyer, Ginger Weatherspoon, submitted an amended divorce petition claiming Jeff was “cruel” (a cause of action that, by statute, requires proof of specific conduct that is intentional, extreme, and outrageous). However, Jeff audio-recorded his phone call with Weatherspoon that shows she knew her cruelty claim was false. The transcript of her statements are an exhibit in Jeff’s complaint (“May 15, 2026 – Husband’s Grievance re. Weatherspoon to Disciplinary Counsel” in the chronology below). To learn more, watch Jeff’s explanation on his YouTube channel, “Bar Grievance Against Ginger Ann Shockley Weatherspoon, May 16, 2026.” For over ten years, Jeff has been an advocate against unilateral no-fault divorce as evidenced by his YouTube broadcasts.

The previous week (May 7), Jeff filed three new motions with the Dallas County Court. His unanswered challenge against the constitutionality of no-fault divorce is still pending.  In the last eight months, judges from five different judicial districts have voluntarily recused themselves. I’m guessing that they don’t want to do the work of trying to rebut Jeff’s constitutional challenge.  The recent judge scheduled an event for May 29 saying she will dismiss the case “for want of prosecution,” but Jeff’s submissions on May 15 should make that impossible.  The court owes Jeff a written answer, showing reasons, to his complaint that no-fault divorce is unconstitutional.

Here is a description of the three motions filed on May 7:

1. Motion to Strike/Disqualify/Sanctions: Because Jeff has proof (the transcript) that Petitioner’s attorney (Ginger Weatherspoon) filed “Cruelty” grounds as a retaliation against Jeff’s speech, Jeff is asking that this Court disqualify and sanction Weatherspoon for fraudulent / frivolous filings.

On May 11, Jeff Morgan broadcasted on his his Facebook Account and YouTube channel a recording of his phone conversation with his wife’s attorney (Ginger Ann Weatherspoon).  Witherspoon submitted to the court testimony accusing Jeff of cruelty. He holds that the lawyer’s claim is fraudulent testimony. So he’s asking the court to disqualify the lawyer and sanction her.  Watch here.

In Jeff’s motion to strike/disqualify/sanction, he included two exhibits. The interrogatories in Exhibit A shows how ludicrous Texas Family Code 6.001 is. All that you need to obtain a divorce is a SUBJECTIVE BELIEF that the marriage is insupportable.

Exhibit B, pages 9-11, contain highlighted texted pertaining to my “cruel treatment,” i.e., my wife did not like me talking about no-fault divorce. This was NOT cruelty, but an attempt to stifle my free speech about a policy issue and punish me for it. I am seeking disqualification of counsel, sanctions, removal of the cruelty allegation, etc.

2. Motion to Retain : This effectively says that the case cannot be dismissed for nonsuit or failure to prosecute, because Jeff’s counterclaim means the Court must, as a matter of law, address his independent affirmative claim for declaratory judgment.

3. Motion for Summary Judgment: This is the mechanism that requests a ruling on that counterclaim. The Court cannot ignore this, and must rule on the constitutionality of 6.001. Dismissal is no longer an option. Jeff’s affirmative counterclaim demands a ruling.

Feb 17, 2026 Update

I spoke to Jeff Morgan this week and he says a total of four judges have now recused themselves. Most recently, the last judge scheduled a hearing to dismiss the case for ‘want of prosecution’ per Rule 165A of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.  In Texas divorce court, Rule 165a allows a judge to dismiss a divorce case for “want of prosecution” if the person who filed the divorce does not actively pursue it.

Every time the court asked Jeff to hand in personal information, Jeff told me that he’s waiting for the Court to answer his complaint that the no-fault statute is unconstitutional.  His motion for dismissal is a threshold issue and he’s not going to go along with their coercion when they haven’t yet told him whether they agree with this constitutional challenge.  I wonder if the divorce Plaintiff can’t find a lawyer whose willing to propose to the Court where Jeff”s challenge is unfounded. Further, I wonder if the judges keep recusing themselves because they can’t write any order showing reasons to disagree with Jeff’s motion arguing that the no-fault divorce statute is unconstitutional. (See chronology below)

For Immediate Release (August 2025)

A Texas resident, Jeff Morgan, has filed a constitutional challenge in Dallas County divorce court against Texas Family Code §6.001, the state’s unilateral “no-fault” divorce law. The complaint, filed on 8 July 2025, argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it allows one spouse to dissolve a marriage without the other’s consent, fault, or any meaningful defense.

The challenge presents seven key arguments. First, the law allows divorce without requiring a valid legal reason. Second, it denies the defending spouse any fair way to oppose the divorce. Third, it guarantees that the spouse who files always wins while the other always loses. Fourth, it reduces judges to rubber stamps with no real power to decide the case. Fifth, it forces courts to make moral or religious judgments about whether a marriage should continue. Sixth, it destroys marriage as a contract by letting one party walk away at will. Seventh, it favors the opinion of the spouse who wants divorce while silencing the one who wants to remain married.

The Defendant, Morgan, has been a proponent of no-fault divorce reform for years on his YouTube channel where his stated purpose is, “to expose the evil and injustice that are codified in the Texas anti-Family Code and implemented by our anti-family courts.”  He is arguing that Texas Family Code §6.001 violates basic constitutional protections and undermines marriage as a legal institution. His goal is to have the court declare the statute unconstitutional and restore protections, such as requiring proof of misconduct before a divorce can be granted.

For interviews or press inquiries, 
write Bai at ma.defending@marysadvocates.org to request Morgan’s contact info

Chronology of Court Docket 

Public Access: Dallas County, Texas Court Portal (Smart Search), DF-25-09534
July 8, 2025 –  Original Petition for Divorce (redacted)
Aug. 8, 2025 – Challenge to Constitutionality of a State Statute (redacted)
Aug. 15, 2025 – Husband’s motion to Recuse Judge Mary Brown
Aug. 25, 2025 – Attorney for Wife submit’s Motion – Substitution of Counsel
Aug. 26, 2025 – Wife’s new lawyer is Ginger Ann Weatherspoon
Sept. 3, 2025 – Husband’s notice Rule 18a(f)(1) a new judge is required
Sept. 7, 2025 – Regional Judge’s Order Denying Motion to Recuse
Sept. 8, 2025 – Judge Brown, 301st, recuses herself
Sept. 11, 2025 – 1st Admin. Judge transfers case to 302nd District Court Dallas
Sept. 11, 2025 – Judge Sandra Jackson, 302nd, recuses herself.
Sept. 15, 2025 – 1st Admin. Judge transfers case to 303rd District Court Dallas
Sept. 25, 2025 – 1st Amended Petition for Divorce
Sept. 25, 2025 – Petitioner’s Answer to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Sept. 29, 2025 – Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s Answer to Motion to Dismiss
Oct. 4, 2025 – Respondent’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Claim for Declaratory Judgment
Oct. 4, 2025 – Respondent’s Amended Answer to Petitioner’s 1st Amended Petition for Divorce
Nov. 18, 2025 – Judge LaDeitra Adkins, 303rd, recuses herself
Nov. 24, 2025 – Judge Andrea D. Plumlee, 330th, recuses herself
Dec. 1, 2025 – 1st Admin. Judge transfers case to 255th District Court Dallas
Dec. 1, 2025 – Judge Kimberly Brown, 254th, recuses herself
Dec. 1, 2025 – 1st Admin Judge transfers case to Judge Vonda Bailey, 255th
Jan 23, 2026 – Judge plans to dismiss on May 29 for want of prosecution

May 7, 2026 – Husband’s Omnibus Motion to Strike/Disqualify/Sanctions
May 7, 2026 – Husband’s Motion to Retain Counterclaim
May 7, 2026 – Husband’s Motion for Summary Judgment deciding Counterclaim
May 15, 2026 – Husband’s Grievance re. Weatherspoon to Disciplinary Counsel

Defendant, Morgan makes public statements Aug. 25

The Man Suing to Stop No-Fault Divorce in Texas
Part 1 of 4 (15m.29s.)
Morgan recounts being blindsided by his wife’s filing, stresses love and hope for reconciliation, criticizes judges’ automatic divorce rulings under Texas law, and argues vague terms like “insupportable” empower unilateral dissolution. He frames no-fault divorce as destructive, unjust, and driven by attorney interests.

Part 2 of 4 (15m.17s.)
Morgan discusses his constitutional challenge, citing due process and equal protection violations. He argues that no-fault divorce predetermines outcomes, discriminates between spouses, and constitutes viewpoint discrimination. He also frames marriage as a religious covenant protected by conscience and religious liberty, making forced divorce a violation of faith.

Part 3 of 4 (12m.24s.)
Morgan reflects on his lifelong experience with divorce’s damage—his first marriage, his parents’ breakup, and generational effects. He criticizes churches for failing families, insists vows to God make marriage permanent, and warns divorce harms children, grandchildren, and society. He advocates reform.

Part 4 of 4 (8m.02s.)
Morgan rebuts claims that reform is a “war on women,” citing support from women and even judges who oppose no-fault divorce. He highlights weak legislative will, failed reform efforts, and broader constitutional violations—including Fourth Amendment concerns—framing forced divorce as destructive, unjust, and imposed without genuine cause.

Summary of the Seven Constitutional Arguments

1. Failing to state a legally cognizable cause of action (No real legal claim):
   The statute allows a spouse to file for divorce without accusing the other of any wrongdoing or breach of duty. In most lawsuits, you must state a real legal claim, but here divorce can be sought “for any reason or no reason.” The memorandum says this makes marriage the only contract in Texas law that can be broken without a valid legal cause.
2. Violating due process by eliminating all meaningful defenses (No fair defense):
   The spouse who wants to keep the marriage has no real way to defend against divorce under this law. Even if they prove the marriage is stable and can be saved, the court must still grant the divorce. This denies the non-filing spouse a fair chance to be heard.
3. Violating equal protection by creating predetermined outcomes based on petitioner/respondent status (Predetermined winners and losers):
   Under §6.001, the spouse who files for divorce always wins, while the defending spouse always loses. Both spouses have equal rights in marriage, but the law treats them unequally once one files for divorce. The memorandum calls this unfair favoritism.
4. Violating separation of powers by eliminating judicial discretion (Judges reduced to rubber stamps):
   Normally, judges weigh evidence, decide facts, and make judgments. But under this statute, judges must grant divorce automatically if one spouse claims “insupportability.” The memorandum argues this strips courts of their constitutional role and makes them powerless.
5. Compelling courts to make religious/ideological determinations (Courts forced into religious judgments):
   When deciding if a marriage is “insupportable,” courts end up ruling on deeply personal beliefs about what marriage means. The memorandum says this forces judges into making moral or religious decisions, something the state should not be doing.
6. Violating the Contract Clause under the Dartmouth exception (Breaking the marriage contract):
   Marriage is a contract with rights and duties. The memorandum argues that §6.001 illegally destroys this contract by letting one person cancel it at will, without fault or agreement. This goes against constitutional protections for contracts.
7. Constituting impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment (Silencing one spouse’s viewpoint):
   The law gives legal power only to the spouse who wants to end the marriage, while ignoring the spouse who wants to keep it. The memorandum says this is unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination,” because the state is favoring one opinion over the other.