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.||‘Fit Mom’ Maria Kang, not yet over self, claims fatties are out to get her|
|2.||Utah health official bans Gardasil, stirring controversy|
|3.||Scott D. Pierce: A dozen TV shows you can stop watching|
|4.||Recipes: 5 all-star holiday cookies from our archives|
|5.||Terrifying Moab BASE jump crash captured by helmet cam|
|6.||Guilt, pain, help and hope — when Mormon missionaries come home early|
|7.||Sundance adds children’s movies to 2014 line-up|
|8.||Pac-12: Washington's hire could help BYU, USU|
|9.||Movie review: A fallen hero speaks in ‘Armstrong Lie’|
|10.||Convicted killer Martin MacNeill survives jail suicide attempt|