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.||SLC makes list in bid for Democratic Convention|
|2.||Coach: Man shot at Utah courthouse once had promising future|
|3.||Turkish ‘street food with a twist’ takes a spin in Salt Lake City|
|4.||Gang defendant shot, killed at new Salt Lake City federal courthouse|
|5.||Student leaders tell University of Utah president to change ‘Utah Man’ fight song|
|6.||Shurtleff responds to report critical of his conduct in Jenson case|
|7.||Winds wreaking havoc in northern, western Utah|
|8.||BBB: Cancer fund spent only 8 percent of money on patients|
|9.||Monson: Jim Boylen to kill — err, coach — the Jazz?|
|10.||MLB: AL capsules and gallery|