This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.

SALT LAKE CITY — A former Utah family featured on the reality TV show "Sister Wives" took its fight over the state's polygamy law to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

Kody Brown and his four wives asked the nation's highest court to hear its appeal of a lower court ruling that went against them in April. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal judge's decision striking down the cohabitation provision in Utah's polygamy law.

"The underlying rights of religious freedom and free speech are certainly too great to abandon after prevailing below in this case," the Browns' attorney Jonathan Turley wrote on his blog. "Equally important is the right for plural families to be heard in federal court, a right sharply curtailed by the 10th Circuit decision."

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down key portions of Utah's polygamy laws as unconstitutional. He found the state's ban on polygamous cohabitation violated the Browns' religious freedom rights. Bigamy — obtaining multiple marriage licenses — remains a felony in Utah.

Utah appealed the ruling, arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not recognize the practice of polygamy as a fundamental right, and the state's law protects women and children from abuse.

The Browns sued Utah over its polygamy laws in 2011 and fled their home in Lehi for Las Vegas after Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman threatened to prosecute them. In most polygamous families, the man is legally married to one woman and "spiritually married" to the others.

In May 2012, Buhman announced a policy that his office would only prosecute polygamists who induce a partner to marry through misrepresentation or are suspected of committing crimes such as fraud or abuse.

The 10th Circuit found the Brown lawsuit moot because there was no credible threat that they would be prosecuted under the law. It ordered Waddoups to vacate his decision and dismiss the suit.

Turley said the appeals court did not address the alleged constitutional violations of religious freedom, equal protection, due process or free speech in its ruling. Instead, it ruled that Waddoups should have dismissed the case after Buhman announced that he no longer intended to prosecute the Browns, he said.

The court acknowledged a future county attorney could change the policy, but that wasn't enough to overcome the mootness issue.

The Utah Attorney General's Office, which represented Buhman in the appeal, had no comment Monday.

×

Related Stories