So it looks like we're going to see arguments on whether Utah's law banning polygamy is unconstitutional in the "Sister Wives" case, maybe as soon as this fall.
That's after a federal judge ruled in the Brown family's favor today, allowing the case to go forward even though Utah County prosecutors have promised they won't go after them, or any other consenting adults who don't commit other crimes.
And the blog-response from Brown attorney Jonathan Turley here.
The state's response is in my story, here.
The next step in the process will come from the Browns, with a filing due Aug. 31. The deadline for a reply from the state is Sept. 14, and a rebuttal from the Browns is due Sept. 28.
I'm interested to see the state's direct response to the Browns' arguments that the law violates their rights to privacy, freedom of expression, etc. So far the state has been mainly been focused on trying to get the suit tossed.
Maybe they'll take a page from Canada's recent court case over their polygamy law? (It was upheld). Page through the vast trove of documents filed in that case here.
|1.||Fall TV preview: The best and worst of fall TV|
|2.||Movie review: ‘Maze Runner’ sends viewers going in circles|
|3.||Lawmaker: All Utah restaurants should have a ‘Zion Curtain’|
|4.||Ordain Women will take its message local to Mormon congregations|
|5.||MLS says Chivas USA might not play in 2015|
|6.||Utah rally: Same-sex marriage would hurt children|
|7.||Darrien Hunt : A life cut short mourned by family, friends|
|8.||Feds charge five Utahns in Recapture Canyon protest ride|
|9.||BYU football: QB Taysom Hill in no rush to change his game|
|10.||Prep phenom Frank Jackson's commitment to BYU basketball still strong, father says|