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.||Family says police shot Utah man because he was black|
|2.||Utah Jazz: Derrick Favors is a grounded guy — and a Utahn|
|3.||Bear attack in Wyoming kills Utah man|
|4.||Kragthorpe: Brandon Doman moves on, from BYU to little league|
|5.||Mormons’ close-knit nature, values drive them to GOP|
|6.||Martin MacNeill to serve up to 15 years for sexual abuse|
|7.||BYU football: Virginia suddenly looking formidable for No. 21 Cougars|
|8.||Ex-LDS presiding bishop is favorite to head UTA board|
|9.||Paul Rolly: The Max Hall issue: It’s not black and white; it’s red and blue|
|10.||Utah man killed by police mourned at vigil, family questions cops’ story|