As reported by The New York Times and National Public Radio, I will be traveling to Salt Lake City today to file (on Wednesday) a challenge to the Utah statute criminalizing bigamy and cohabitation. The lawsuit will be filed on behalf of my clients, the Brown family. The Browns are featured in the TLC program Sister Wives as an openly polygamous family.
The lawsuit will be filed in federal court in Salt Lake City on Wednesday and we will be available for questions at 1 p.m. outside of the courthouse.
The Plaintiffs are Kody Brown, Christine Brown, Janelle Brown, Meri Brown, and Robyn Sullivan.
As in past cases, I will have to be circumspect in what I say after the filing of this action. However, we are honored to represent the Brown family in this historic challenge,” said Professor Turley. “We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. This action seeks to protect one of the defining principles of this country, what Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the right to be left alone.’ In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state.
The following is the statement from Kody Brown, which will be the only statement at this time on the filing:
Statement of Kody Brown:
“There are tens of thousands of plural families in Utah and other states. We are one of those families. We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs. While we understand that this may be a long struggle in court, it has already been a long struggle for my family and other plural families to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment given consensual polygamy. We are indebted to Professor Turley and his team for their work and dedication. Together we hope to secure equal treatment with other families in the United States.”
We will post the complaint as soon as it is docketed by the Clerk of Court.
Jonathan Turley
I am a Canuck and was wondering what, if any, the constitutional underpinnings of banning polygamy are. It seems, to the casual observer at least, that the US Constitution broadly advocates for civil liberty.
Here in Canada our constitution is more concerned with the rule of law and order and I think the law banning polygamy is threatened.
The quote from former Prime Minister Trudeau “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” to my mind at least, captures the prevailing sentiment up here.
I expected to hate the Brown’s and was ready to. I watched the show and I saw a loving family. Who raises their own children – pays their own way and is not hurting anyone. So – I hope they win, and people just plain leave them alone.
My wife and I watched the first season of the show and decided we hated the Brown Family. That being said we both believed they had every right to their lifestyle. i’m proud JT that you are supporting them in this case and I wish them/you an important victory, for us all. By the way for those that think this will reduce the availability of available women, please remember if a win in this case sets a precedent polyandry will also be permissible.
A the older wives get fatter and fatter, he gets new skinny wives. Look at the pictures.
It was lawful so long as it was a Territory…The women even had the right to vote on matters concerning territoriality issues…..But when the US wanted to take it over….Plurality of marriages and the Women lost the right to vote…..
I still think that they should be able to do what it is what they want to so long as the parties are consenting and willing…..what you have and where it gets wrong is when you have the Warren Jeffs of the World…..
But then…we have the GOP running and ruining lots of things…the D’s are just as bad…..
Some brainiacs need to stop, read and realize that this effort has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the LEGALIZATION of polygamous marriages. These people just want to stop being classed as felons.
Bruce,
“the privacy issues decided in Lawrence v. Texas”
Lawrence did deal with the criminalization of sexual behavior being practiced by consenting adults in their own bedroom.
I see no principled difference in Brown and Lawrence to the degree sexual behavior in the privacy of a bedroom is being criminalized.
I can only second the well wishes and pro-Constitutional sentiments of the other posters. The good fight is where you find it and this fight goes straight to civil rights. It doesn’t get any better than that.
Good luck on the case and may civil rights prevail, JT! Polygamy, while a practice I’d never engage in for a variety of reasons, should be allowed as a decision between consenting adults, a contractual practice and a practice of religion. The Constitution should come first as polygamy infringes upon nobody else’s rights as long as voluntary and between parties otherwise able to enter into marriage.
I’d also like to say “good save” to Mike Appleton.
This will be an interesting case, particularly since it will squarely pit the notion of marriage as a civil contract against marriage as a sacred institution endorsed and protected by the state. Should the Browns prevail, we will absolutely see demands for legal recognition of polyandrous relationships as well, although they are much less common. In addition, statutes regulating the dissolution of marriage, alimony, child support and visitation will require substantial revision.
It is also inevitable, of course, that religious fundamentalists will condemn the suit as a predictable consequence of the legitimization of gay marriage.
And if you’re reading this, snuggle bunny, my interest in the topic is purely that of a lawyer committed to civil rights.
Bruce,
There’s a large difference between a culture of institutionalized polygamy and a liberal democracy decriminalizing cohabitation and bigamy. How many married couples do you know that would suddenly start living with another person if it were legalized?
This would mean full employment for all the divorce lawyers in the country! Imagine trying to settle the dispute between spouses (spice? 🙂 ) when one, or more, of them want to dissolve the union with one, or more, of the rest.
I may go to law school yet!
Good luck, professor Turley. The right of private contract in a “free” society should be so obviously self-evident that a lawsuit should not be necessary.
Bruce – I see your concern but if polygamy is legal, why wouldn’t polyandry be legal also?
Reynolds v. United States. Get the money up front Prof. Turley.
Past meets science fiction future.
It would be interesting to see a State legalize polygamy, just so we could see the experiment run. But I think the outcome would be terrible. Assuming a natural sex ratio of about 50/50, the result of widespread polygamy would be a lot of men unable to find mates. The inevitable result of Kody Brown having three “sister wives” in addition to his one “legal” wife is that somewhere there are three men who won’t get married.
Sexually frustrated and lonely men tend to get into trouble. That’s bad for a society. It ratchets up jealousy and resentment against the men who are “hogging” the women. I don’t see any way in which polygamy can be anything but erosive of the rough social equality which is one of the bases of what we think of as the American way of life. I can live with a great deal of economic inequality. I don’t begrudge Donald Trump his yacht, hist private jets or even his serial marriages. But I’d be very pissed off if he started keeping a harem and I couldn’t find a woman to marry me. Multiply that by a few million plural marriages and you begin to see why the State has an interest in keeping marriages one-to-one.
This is different, by the way, from gay marriage, or the privacy issues decided in Lawrence v. Texas. Boiled down, Lawrence was only about the State trying to regulate what prong could enter what orifice. Polygamy is rather about long-term relationships, publicly proclaimed and practiced in the open where other people’s interests are affected. Polygamy reduces the pool of eligible mates; gay marriage, by contrast, deprives no man of the potential for finding a willing mate.
Historically polygamy has only existed in highly unequal and patriarchal societies. This may not be inevitable, but I would like to see an example, anywhere, of a polygamous society that was relatively high in equality. Maybe this could happen if plural marriages were truly plural – say, 3 men married to 3 women. Good luck with that, though. I doubt the men could handle the negotiations it would require to be “brother husbands.”
The Brown Family and others like them deserve to win this challenge.
Have a safe trip there JT. I’m calling for a siesta now.