Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

TV personalities Meri Brwon, Janelle Brown, Kody Brown, Christine Brown and Robyn Brown speak during the "Sister Wives" panel during a 2010 press tour in Beverly Hills, California. | Getty Appeals court tosses 'Sister Wives' suit over Utah polygamy ban

A federal appeals court has dismissed, on technical grounds, a closely-watched legal challenge to Utah's law against polygamous marriages.

Some legal experts said the Supreme Court's decision last year finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to a ruling striking down anti-polygamy laws. However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision Monday that left that question for another day by ruling that the case before them was moot since the plaintiffs no longer faced a credible threat of prosecution under the law.

The suit was brought by Kody Brown and four women who say they are "sister wives" spiritually married to Brown, although only one is legally married to him. The case was filed after the family appeared on the reality series, 'Sister Wives," and a local prosecutor in Utah County, Utah opened an investigation.

A district court judge had ruled that part of the anti-polygamy law was unconstitutional, but the three-judge appeals court panel ruled in a unanimous opinion Monday that the case was no longer viable once the prosecutor involved, Jeff Buhman, issued a new policy limiting prosecution to cases of deception or involving polygamy and some other crime, such as abuse.

"The record shows the [prosecutor's office] has adopted, and intends to abide by, a policy under which the Browns face no threat of prosecution," 10th Circuit Judge Scott Matheson wrote. "Although Mr. Buhman cannot control his successors and extend his nonprosecution pledge in perpetuity, there is no reasonable expectation the Browns will face prosecution. The small number of prior [Utah County Attorney's Office] prosecutions—three in a ten-year period, at least two of which also involved charges for collateral crimes—reinforces this conclusion. The UCAO Policy is consistent with, not a departure from, what was apparently a longstanding de facto policy of non-prosecution. And it is consistent with the [Utah Attorney General] Policy. As a result, the prospect that a future Utah County Attorney will begin prosecuting defendants like the Browns is speculative and remote."

An attorney for the Browns, Jonathan Turley, promised an appeal but did not say whether that would be an effort to get the case re-heard by the full bench of the 10th Circuit or to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

"We respectfully disagree with the panel on its interpretation of the governing law and we will appeal the decision," Turley said on his blog. "The Brown family is obviously disappointed in the ruling but remains committed to this fight for the protections of religion, speech, and privacy in Utah. They respect the panel’s consideration of the appeal and the review process afforded their case."

Full disclosure: Approximately 25 years ago, Matheson was a professor in a course taken by the author of this post.

UPDATE (Monday, 2:37 P.M.): This post has been updated with comment from Turley and to clarify the disclosure.