US Supreme Court declines to hear polygamy case

[FarCenter]

WASHINGTON (AFP) -
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a man and his four wives -- stars of a reality TV show -- challenging a ban on polygamy in their native state of Utah.

Kody Brown is legally married to Meri but also lives with Janelle, Christine and Robyn. They are members of a fringe religious group, related to Mormon fundamentalism, with polygamy as a core tenet of their beliefs.

Brown and his wives have battled in the courts for seven years against a law in Utah banning polygamy, arguing that it infringes on their freedom of speech and religion.

They are the stars of the show "Sister Wives," which airs on TLC and documents the life of a "plural" family.

In December 2013, the Browns won a surprising legal victory when a federal court ruled that Utah's law against bigamy was unconstitutional.

But an appeals court overturned that judgment in 2016.

The Supreme Court in Washington declined to add the case to its schedule Monday, without giving any reason for its decision, thereby leaving the appeal court's decision in place.

http://www.france24.com/en/20170124-us-supreme-court-declines-hear-polygamy-case

Guess that would apply to Muslims too?

[Doreen]

1. Actually Kody is legaly married to Robyn.

Robyn had kids from a previous marriage and if something happened to her her kids would have gone to their not good father so Meri legally divorced Kody so he could adopt Robyn's kids. I have been watching this program from the beginning and They are a very happy family and no one is in it against their will. I changed my mind to some degree about peoples right to a polygamist marriage after watching this and listening to them. They are NOTHING like the camps that they have where they marry off little girls. The Browns find that very disturbing and disgusting and get angry when people think they believe in that. The courts need to leave the Browns the fuck alone and even allow Kody to legally marry his other wives.

[JustinL]

2. the article is misleading - the constitutionality of Utah's law is still unsettled

The article makes it sound like the Court of Appeals overturned the District Court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. In fact, all the Court of Appeals decided was that the family's case was moot because "they are under no credible threat of prosecution." It directed the District Court to dismiss the case accordingly. See the wikipedia article on "Brown v Buhman," which has links to the Courts' opinions.