Federal Appellate Court Reverses 2013 Fed Ct Polygamy Decision

[smac97]

This may be very significant:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY -- A federal appeals court on Monday dismissed a landmark decision that decriminalized polygamy in Utah, marking a legal defeat for the family from the reality TV show "Sister Wives."

Kody Brown and his four wives cannot sue the state over its ban on plural marriages because the family never faced charges and prosecutors later said they would not prosecute consenting adults with multiple wives, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled.

The decision reverses a 2013 ruling that removed the threat of arrest for polygamous families. U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups had found that the threat of prosecution alone drove the Browns out of the state and that key parts of Utah's bigamy law violated their right to privacy and religious freedom.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes appealed Waddoups' ruling. The state has a longstanding policy against prosecuting consenting adult polygamists, but prosecutors argued that the ban should stay on the books to help authorities go after polygamists who commit other crimes, such as sexual assault, statutory rape and exploitation of government benefits.

Prosecutors also pointed to imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs, who was convicted of assaulting underage girls he considered wives.

The Browns said other laws exist to target crimes linked to plural marriages and that banning the practice can sow distrust of authority. They say their show is evidence that polygamous unions can be as healthy as monogamous marriages.

Bigamy, or holding multiple marriage licenses, remained illegal amid the legal fight. Brown has a license for only one of his marriages and says his other unions are spiritual.

There are about 30,000 polygamists in Utah, according to court documents. They believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven — a legacy of the early Mormon church. The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandoned the practice in 1890 and strictly prohibits it today.

The Browns' lawyer and the state attorney general did not immediately have comment.

The article is not a model of clarity, so here is the decision from the Tenth Circuit.  Some excerpts:

Quote

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Utah’s bigamy statute, Utah Code Annotated § 76-7-101 (“the Statute”), which provides:
 

Quote

 

(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we hold this matter is moot. It is not a “Case” or “Controversy” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. We remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss this action.

...

The district court erred by proceeding to the merits. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They lack power to decide issues—however important or fiercely contested—that are detached from a live dispute between the parties. Following adoption of the UCAO {Utah County Attorney's Office} Policy {under which the Utah County Attorney will bring bigamy prosecutions only against those who (1) induce a partner to marry through misrepresentation or (2) are suspected of committing a collateral crime such as fraud or abuse}, the Browns’ suit ceased to qualify as an Article III case or controversy. Their suit was moot before the district court awarded them relief, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to decide the Browns’ claims.

The decision goes into more detail, but the mootness issue appears to be the crux of the reversal.

An interesting development, to say the least.  But it will not be the last legal battle regarding polygamy, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

As I understand, it means that the bigamy statute stays on the books because no one has been prosecuted and challenged it in court.

Am I missing something?

Edited April 11, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

Utterly ridiculous.
Keeping it a crime among consenting adults but refusing to prosecute it as a crime.

And because nobody was being prosecuted under it they aren't going to strike the unconstitutional clause because the pointless law wasn't hurting anybody.

Idiots.

[rockpond]

I agree with JLHProf.  It's a shockingly bad dismissal.

Also, all those who truly believe in religious freedom in this country should be appalled.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Utterly ridiculous.
Keeping it a crime among consenting adults but refusing to prosecute it as a crime.

And because nobody was being prosecuted under it they aren't going to strike the unconstitutional clause because the pointless law wasn't hurting anybody.

Idiots.

There is a way to repeal legislatively-enacted laws.  If at all possible, I'd prefer that way to be legislative, not by judicial fiat.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is a way to repeal legislatively-enacted laws.  If at all possible, I'd prefer that way to be legislative, not by judicial fiat.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree, but that should never have been a law in the first place.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Utterly ridiculous.
Keeping it a crime among consenting adults but refusing to prosecute it as a crime.

And because nobody was being prosecuted under it they aren't going to strike the unconstitutional clause because the pointless law wasn't hurting anybody.

Idiots.

Not idiotic at all.  It is a well-settled matter of law that you can't sue for relief where there is no cause of action.  I can't, for example, exceed the speed limit on the freeway, and then sue the state about what I consider to be a flawed or unconstitutional violation of my right to travel, if nobody gave me a traffic citation that I could bring into court and dispute.

It's called "failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted."  In other words, just because the wicked flee when no man pursueth, does not give the wicked a cause to bring suit in a court of law about the unjust nature of the non-pursuit.  If the prosecutor declines to prosecute, then the evildoer is just S.O.L.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Not idiotic at all.  It is a well-settled matter of law that you can't sue for relief where there is no cause of action.  I can't, for example, exceed the speed limit on the freeway, and then sue the state about what I consider to be a flawed or unconstitutional violation of my right to travel, if nobody gave me a traffic citation that I could bring into court and dispute.

It's called "failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted."  In other words, just because the wicked flee when no man pursueth, does not give the wicked a cause to bring suit in a court of law about the unjust nature of the non-pursuit.  If the prosecutor declines to prosecute, then the evildoer is just S.O.L.

You are correct I am sure.
It doesn't change the fact that the very continued existence of the law is pointless and fighting to keep a pointless law on the books is still idiotic.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

You are correct I am sure.
It doesn't change the fact that the very continued existence of the law is pointless and fighting to keep a pointless law on the books is still idiotic.

Of course I'm correct, and of course you're correct about keeping a pointless law on the books.

But it wasn't the decision of the court which was idiotic.  That's where I was coming from.