The Supreme Court's majority opinion by Justice Brown held that the state was too late in attempting to intervene as a party since it did not try to do so until after a decree was entered. It also held that the state did not show grounds to maintain a third-party appeal of the trial court's decision. Justice Boyd filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the state is in no way bound by the trial court's decree.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion (which was joined by Justices Guzman and Devine) concluding:
In my view, the attorney general—constitutionally bound to “represent the State in all suits” has an interest sufficient to intervene to defend Texas law against perceived constitutional attack. His arguments may not prevail, but he should be allowed to make them.Justice Devine also filed a separate dissent reaching the merits and concluding that the Texas ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional. Thus, since the parties were not married, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the divorce action. Dallas Morning News reports on the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]