Texas – Constitutional Challenge of No-fault Divorce

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Sept. 11 Update, Two judges have recused themselves. See chronology below) 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. 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 that a new judge is required
Sept. 8, 2025 – Judge Brown recuses herself
Sept. 11, 2025 – 1st Admin. Judge transfers case to 302nd District Court Dallas
Sept. 11, 2025 – 302nd District Judge Jackson recuses herself.
Sept. 15, 2025 – 1st Admin. Judge transfers case to 303rd District Court Dallas

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.