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.||Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover|
|2.||Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review|
|3.||Magnitude 3.2 earthquake jolts western Utah, USGS says|
|4.||Washington Insight: The Sagebrush Rebellion lives on with Nevada dispute|
|5.||Ex-NFL punter Chris Kluwe tells atheists to strive for empathy in Utah|
|6.||Utah same-sex marriage case could be thrown out on a technicality|
|7.||Salt Lake Comic Con FanX: In ‘cosplay,’ everybody can be anybody|
|8.||Utah realtors give ‘murder homes’ another life|
|9.||Why all the hate for Salt Lake City’s new federal courthouse?|
|10.||Scott D. Pierce: Bill O’Reilly thinks right-wingers are idiots|