The Man Taking on No-Fault Divorce in Texas — And Why His Case Could Change Marriage in America

DALLAS — Jeff Morgan isn’t a lawyer. But when his wife of 11 years filed for divorce on July 8, 2025, in Dallas County, he decided to fight back not only for his marriage but against the law itself.

On August 8, 2025, Morgan — representing himself — filed a 31-page motion to dismiss his wife’s petition, arguing that Texas’ no-fault divorce law, Family Code §6.001, is unconstitutional on 11 separate grounds. If he succeeds, the case could upend divorce law in Texas — and potentially across the nation, prompting a reevaluation of how marriages are dissolved without proof of fault.

“Barbaric” by Design

Texas law allows either spouse to dissolve a marriage simply by claiming it has become “insupportable” due to discord or conflict of personalities that destroys the legitimate ends of the marital relationship, with no reasonable expectation of reconciliation. No proof. No allegations of wrongdoing. No defense permitted. Judges must grant the divorce automatically.

“To end a marriage in Texas, all you need are the magic words,” Morgan said in an interview with The Federalist.  “One person makes an allegation, and that’s it. The other spouse — me, in this case — doesn’t even get heard.”

Morgan’s legal challenge attacks the statute from every angle, expanding on his 11 grounds:

• Failure to State a Legally Cognizable Cause of Action: The law permits divorce without any breach of marital duties, treating marriage as the only contract that can be terminated “for any reason or no reason.”

• Due Process Violation: It denies the non-filing spouse a meaningful defense, as courts must grant divorce regardless of evidence showing the marriage is salvageable.

• Equal Protection Violation: The statute creates predetermined winners (petitioners) and losers (respondents), treating spouses unequally based on who files first.

• Separation of Powers Violation: It strips judges of discretion, reducing them to rubber stamps and usurping judicial authority.

• Compelling Ideological or Religious Determinations: Courts are forced to adjudicate subjective beliefs about marriage’s permanence, infringing on personal convictions.

• Contract Clause Violation: Under the Dartmouth College exception, the state unlawfully impairs the marital contract by allowing unilateral termination.

• Viewpoint Discrimination (First Amendment): The law favors the viewpoint of the spouse seeking divorce while silencing the other.

• Religious Freedom Infringement: It burdens Morgan’s faith-based belief in marriage’s permanence, violating the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Texas Government Code 110.003) and Article 1, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution.

• Obergefell Paradox: Citing the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Morgan argues that if marriage is a fundamental right warranting protection for same-sex couples, the state cannot forcibly dissolve his without due process, denying him benefits like health care and parental rights.

• Predetermined Outcomes as Discrimination: Echoing equal protection concerns, this reinforces the law’s bias toward dissolution.

• Forced Divorce Denying Benefits: It strips individuals of federal and state marital benefits, constituting further discrimination.

“This isn’t about politics. It’s not about men versus women,” Morgan said.  “It’s about whether marriage means anything at all when one person can destroy it without cause, without proof, and without consequence.”

Scarred by Divorce, Refusing to Surrender

Morgan’s fight is deeply personal. As a child, he endured his parents’ divorce after his mother’s affair — a trauma that led him to contemplate suicide. His first marriage of 25 years ended via no-fault divorce when his wife left for another man, leaving him to raise three children alone. Now, facing a second unwanted divorce, Morgan says he still loves his wife and believes reconciliation is possible, attributing her decision to stress from caring for her adult son with serious health issues.

“I’ve seen divorce destroy families, crush children, and push men to suicide,” Morgan said.  “And yet the state makes it easier than breaking a gym membership.”

Despite the petition, Morgan wants the law to allow him a fair chance to defend the marriage rather than mandating its termination. On his YouTube channel (@jeffinjordan), he exposes what he calls the “evil and injustice” in Texas family courts, aiming to strengthen families for future generations. 

No “War on Women” — Just Ordinary People Fighting Back - Media outlets have framed divorce reform as a conservative “war on women,” but Morgan’s case — like a similar lawsuit in Oklahoma — stems from individual spouses resisting the reduction of marriage to a one-sided contract. His filings emphasize no abuse, no threats, and no protective orders, countering claims that restricting no-fault divorce would trap victims in danger.

“Most divorces have nothing to do with violence,” Morgan said.  “That’s a scare tactic to shut down reform.”

Morgan, a longtime critic of unilateral divorce, was named 2019 Activist of the Year by the Ruth Institute. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, the group’s founder, praises his unique perspective as a child of divorce, abandoned spouse, and alienated parent and grandparent. 

The Broader Debate: Benefits vs. Harms

No-fault divorce, adopted nationwide by the 1980s, aimed to reduce acrimony and litigation. Proponents argue it lowered domestic violence by 30% and female suicides by 8-16%, enabling easier escapes from abusive marriages.  Critics, however, contend it destabilizes families, with children of divorce facing higher risks of poverty, emotional issues, and lower adult earnings.  Statistics show U.S. divorce rates have declined to 2.7 per 1,000 people in 2025, but children in divorced homes experience worse physical, emotional, and academic outcomes compared to those in intact families.   Research links no-fault laws to increased instability, with parental divorce raising children’s chances of incarceration, teen pregnancy, and mortality.  

Opponents of reform warn that requiring fault could prolong toxic unions, increase costs, and endanger women, as proving abuse in court is burdensome.   Yet Morgan and supporters argue the law undermines marriage’s sanctity, incentivizing breakups without accountability. 

Headed for the Supreme Court?

A hearing on Morgan’s motion is set for February 5, 2026, before Judge Mary Brown in Dallas County. Recent developments include Morgan’s motion to recuse Judge Brown due to prior conflicts from her 2022 campaign, a demand for a jury trial if the dismissal is denied, and a pending response from his wife’s counsel (due by August 29, 2025).   Morgan is also circulating a petition among Texas residents to urge the Attorney General, Governor, and Legislature to repeal unilateral no-fault divorce. 

If Texas courts reject his arguments, the case could appeal to higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court — forcing a nationwide reckoning over no-fault divorce’s constitutionality.

“This is bigger than me,” Morgan said.  “This is about whether marriage is a real covenant or just a temporary license either side can rip up anytime.”

As long as one spouse can end a marriage unilaterally, Morgan argues, it offers no real security — for husbands, wives, or children.

“Our country has destroyed the institution of marriage,” he said.  “That which should be the greatest blessing — a source of love, stability, and protection — is now treated as disposable. And families are paying the price.”

Hard truth: If Morgan is right, no-fault divorce — the law that lets one person end a marriage without cause — could be living on borrowed time. And the future of American marriage may soon be decided not in a state legislature, but in a courtroom.