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.||Lindsey, Burke address internet photo issue|
|2.||In Utah, Mormon chapels are here, there and everywhere|
|3.||Utah Jazz: Trey Burke apologizes for leaked nude photographs|
|4.||DA says Dillon Taylor officer-involved killing was justified|
|5.||Utah school district settles with family of boy who killed himself|
|6.||Mitt Romney to make his home in Utah|
|7.||LDS meeting: Feminists seeking change find it in subtle wording|
|8.||When it comes to Cougar sports, BYU’s president sure is game|
|9.||Violent assault ruled out in death of Utah family, but not foul play|
|10.||Utah football: ‘Somber’ Utes get early start prepping for UCLA|