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.||Photos: Taylor Swift dominates Billboard Awards, Bieber awards draw boos|
|2.||Kirby: What would you let money do to you?|
|3.||Utah police close active Susan Powell investigation|
|4.||At least 20 children among the 51 killed in Oklahoma tornado|
|5.||Founding Doors member Ray Manzarek dies at 74|
|6.||Kragthorpe: Chickening out? Bronco won’t say so, but why not?|
|7.||‘Star Trek’ does $70.6M but falls short of studio hopes|
|8.||Hatch wants immigrant fingerprints taken at airports|
|9.||Mormon movie soundtrack a historical journey for Utah composer Paul Cardall|
|10.||Utah Jazz: Long odds separate Jazz from top of lottery|