Monday, July 18, 2011

Herman Cain Says Communities Should Be Able To Block Mosques

Yesterday, Chris Wallace interviewed Herman Cain, a candidate for the Republican nomination for President (full transcript).  A portion of the interview focused on Cain's sometimes controversial views of Muslim Americans. Here is an extensive excerpt from the interview:
WALLACE: You said this week that you oppose construction of a new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee..... What's your objection to their building a new mosque?
CAIN: One of my guiding principles, Chris, is that if you want to know the solution to the problem or if you want to understand the problem, go to source closest to the problem. I talk to the people in that community.
And here's their problem and I sympathized with them. Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in that community and the people in the community do not like it, they disagree with it.
Sharia law is what they are to infuse in to our --
WALLACE: Wait a minute. Are you saying that we should ban Muslims from worshiping in this country?
CAIN: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is American laws in American courts. That's what the people of Murfreesboro are saying.... Well, Chris, I happen to also know that it's not just about a religious mosque. There are other things going on based upon talking to the people closest to the problem. It's not a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to....
WALLACE: ... [M]y question, I guess is, this isn't Ground Zero in New York City. It's not hallowed ground. Don't Americans have a right of whatever religion under the Constitution, which you speak so much about, to free speech and freedom to worship.
CAIN: To the people in Murfreesboro, it is hallowed ground. They are objecting to the intentions of trying to get Sharia law.... 
WALLACE: But couldn't any community then say we don't want a mosque in our community?
CAIN: ... [L]et's go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying that they are objecting to. They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both religion and of set of laws, Sharia law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes.
The people in the community know best. And I happen to side with the people in the community.
WALLACE: So, you're saying that any community, if they want to ban a mosque.
CAIN: Yes, they have the right to do that. That's not discriminating based upon religion -- against that particular religion. There is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about. And the people in the community know what is it and they are talking about it.

WALLACE: ... This gets back to an early controversy where ... you said that you're not comfortable with the idea of appointing a Muslim for your cabinet. As someone who I'm sure who faced prejudice growing up ... in the '50s, '60s, how do you respond to those who say you are doing the same thing?
CAIN: I tell them that that's absolutely not true, because it is absolutely totally different. I grew up, like you said, in the '50s and the '60s. I grew up before civilian rights movement, during the civil rights movement and after the civil rights movement.... We had some laws that were restricting people because of their color and because of their color only. That's what that situation was.
WALLACE: But aren't you willing to restrict people because of their religion?
CAIN: I'm willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That's what I'm saying. Look, I know that that there's a peaceful group of Muslims in this country. God bless them and they are tree to worship. I have no problem with that.
If you at my career, I have never discriminated against anybody because of their religion, their sex, or origin, or anything like that. I'm simply saying I owe it to the American people to be cautious because terrorists are trying to kill us. And so, yes, I'm going to err on the side of caution, rather than on the side of carelessness.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
From SmartCILP and elsewhere:
  • John R. Dorocak and Lloyd E. Peake, Political Activity of Tax-Exempt Churches, Particularly After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and California's Proposition 8 Ban On Same-Sex Marriage: Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's, [Abstract], 9 First Amendment Law Review 448-485 (2011).
  • K. Eli Akhavan, Basic Principles of Estate Planning Within the Context of Jewish Law, Probate and Property, July/Aug. 2011, pg. 60.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

IRS Asked To Investigate Church For Endorsing Recall

Americans United announced last week that it has written the Internal Revenue Service (full text of letter) asking it to investigate the El Paso, Texas, Tom Brown Ministries. AU says the ministry engaged in partisan politics by endorsing the recall of the mayor and two members of city council after the city approved extending health care benefits to domestic partners. AU says that a disclaimer on the church's website saying that the site is owned by Tom Brown and not the church is insufficient to prevent the recall efforts being attributed to the Ministries. The website contains an open letter to city council and a link to the recall petition. Brown also announced his support for the recall in an e-mail and during church services last month.

Texas Board of Education Will Debate Evolution In Selecting Supplemental Science Materials

The Texas Independent reported Friday that this week the Texas State Board of Education will again be debating evolution as it meets to select supplemental science curriculum materials for public schools. New Board chairman Barbara Cargill, a former science teacher, told the Texas Eagle Forum that she is one of only 'six true conservative Christians on the board." Cargill favors schools teaching  the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Proponents of that view now want to introduce that focus in supplemental materials, since the board rejected that language for curriculum standards in 2009. (See prior posting.) It is unclear how four new Republican board members will vote.

Tajik Government Fights Rise of Islam

The New York Times today reports on efforts of the government of Tajikistan to fight the increasing popularity of Islam in the country.  According to the Times:
Bearded men have been detained at random, and women barred from religious services. This year, the government demanded that students studying religion at universities in places like Egypt, Syria and Iran return home. The police have shuttered private mosques and Islamic Web sites, and government censors now monitor Friday sermons, stepping in when muftis stray from the government line.
Last month, lawmakers took what many here said was a drastic step further: they passed a law that would, among other things, bar children younger than 18 from attending religious services at mosques. 
It is called the law “on parental responsibility for educating and raising children,” and the measure, according to officials, is meant to prevent children from skipping school to attend prayer services, and it would hold parents responsible if they do.
Government critics liken it to a Soviet-style attempt at reversing Islam’s spread. Many warn, however, that banning young people from mosques may have the opposite effect.
UPDATE: Forum18 (July 21) has a more detailed analysis of Tajikistan's Parental Responsibility Law, as well as a new criminal law provision barring extremist religious teaching.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Kuperman v. Wrenn, (1st Cir., July 14, 2011), the 1st Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims by an Orthodox Jewish former prisoner that his rights were violated by requiring him to have a beard no more 1/4 inch in length.

In Garcia v. Clark, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73647 (E CA, July 8, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a preliminary injunction be issued requiring staff at a substance abuse treatment facility to furnish plaintiff, an Orthodox Jewish inmate, with the same kosher meals that are provided to similarly situated inmates and to provide him a place to pray at breakfast time. Plaintiff claimed that correctional officers harass, degrade and mock him, continuously take his Kosher food and are attempting to deny him all Kosher meals because he is not picking up his morning meal. UPDATE: The court adopted the magistrate's recommendations at 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108284, Sept. 22, 2011.

In Sherman-Bey v. Marshall, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73869 (CD CA, July 8, 2011), a California federal district court accepted the findings and recommendations of a federal magistrate judge (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73801, April 25, 2011) and allowed an inmate who was a member of the Moorish Science Temple to proceed with his free exercise claim that he was denied the right to purchase a red fez because red was seen as gang colors; and with his 1st and 14th Amendment claims that Moorish Science Temple adherents were denied separate congregational services. RLUIPA claims and claims he could not buy scented oils were dismissed.

In Kindred v. California Department Mental Health, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74908 (ED CA, July 11, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of claims by plaintiff, who is housed at a state hospital, that his rights were infringed when he was not permitted to buy a prayer rug and one of his spiritual books was damaged. Plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint as to some of his official capacity RLUIPA claims.

In Chase v. City of Philadelphia, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75463 (ED PA, July 12, 2011), a Pennsylvania federal district court denied a TRO to a pre-trial detainee who requested kosher meals, finding that he does not hold a sincere belief in the Jewish religion.

In Bean v. Mancuso, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74994 (WD LA, July 12, 2011), a federal district court accepted a federal magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75005, June 17, 2011) and dismissed as frivolous an inmate's claim that he needed a vegetarian diet for religious reasons.

In Harris v. Lappin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73003 (ED VA, July 7, 2011), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a former inmate's claim that racial and religious discrimination led to his being denied a sentence reduction for completing a drug abuse program.

In Mayweathers v. Swarthout, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76413 (ED CA, July 13, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be permitted to proceed with his claim that he should be provided kosher meals until halal meals are available in prison.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

U.S.-Iraq At Odds Over Return Of Jewish Books and Materials To Iraq

Haaretz earlier this week, in a report from AP, discloses a complex dispute between U.S. and Iraqi officials over the return to Iraq of a trove of Jewish books, photos and religious materials which U.S. forces discovered in 2003 in a basement used by Saddam Hussein's secret police.  Found by a U.S. military team searching for weapons of mass destruction, the collection was sent to the United States for restoration and safekeeping under an agreement entered in 2003 between the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and the National Archives and Records Administration. Under the agreement, the U.S. would restore and display the collection, but would return it to Iraq whenever the Iraqi government requested. At a meeting held in June 2010 between U.S. officials and the head of Iraq's National Library and Archives, it was decided that half the material would be returned by the end of 2010, and the rest only after it was restored and displayed in the United States. However, the U.S. failed to meet the 2010 deadline, and Iraq's deputy culture minister, Taher Naser al-Hmood, is demanding that the materials be returned.

The State Department says it has only recently received the $3 million in funding to do the restoration work.  Some fear that once the material is returned to Iraq, it will not be accessible to Jewish scholars, particularly Israeli ones. However Iraq says it will digitize the material so it is available to those outside Iraq. The situation is complicated by Iraqi suspicions that American Jewish groups are pressing the State Department not to return the materials. Those suspicions also interfered with attempts by Iraqi Jewish exiles to use these negotiations to also raise issues such as protecting Jewish cemeteries and shrines in Iraq.

9th Circuit Now Says Recruitment Portion of DADT Can Be Implemented On Congress' Timetable

Once again, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has changed the rules on enforcement of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  Last October, a district court enjoined enforcement of DADT.  In November, the 9th Circuit stayed that injunction, allowing enforcement of DADT pending appeal.  However on July 7, the 9th Circuit lifted the stay, reinstituting the enforcement ban. (See prior posting.) Now, in an order handed down yesterday in response to an emergency motion for reconsideration, in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, (9th Cir., July 15, 2011), the court changed its mind again and permitted enforcement of one aspect of DADT.  Under the ruling, the military may not investigate, penalize or discharge any current service members under DADT.  However the military does not need to change its recruiting practices at this time.  As reported by the Washington Blade, the military may for now continue to apply DADT to prevent openly gay individuals from enlisting in the military.  Instead the military will apparently be able to implement an end to DADT recruiting practices on its own timetable as set out in Congressional repeal legislation passed last year.  Explaining its order, the 9th Circuit said that the government had not informed the court how far along it was in implementation of the Congressional DADT repeal. However the court also ordered the government to file additional information explaining why it had failed to previously give the court this information.

Secretary Clinton Addresses Religious Freedom During Trip To Turkey

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is on a trip to Turkey, Greece and several Asian countries from July 14 to 25. (Itinerary).  As reported by Turkish Weekly, while in Turkey on July 15-16, she had several occassions to address issues of religious liberty.  In her joint press conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet  Davutoglu (full text), she said:
Today, the foreign minister and I discussed additional ways we can further strengthen our ties. Turkey’s upcoming constitutional reform process presents an opportunity to address concerns about recent restrictions that I heard about today from young Turks about the freedom of expression and religion, to bolster protections for minority rights, and advance the prospects for EU membership, which we wholly and enthusiastically support.
We also hope that a process will include civil society and parties from across the political spectrum. And of course, I hope that sometime soon we can see the reopening of the Halki Seminary that highlights Turkey’s strength of democracy and its leadership in a changing region.
She also spoke at the Organization of the Islamic Conference High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance held at Istanbul's Center for Islamic Arts and History. (Full text of remarks.) She said in part:
I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 1618 at the Human Rights Council.... [T]ogether we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs. Under this resolution, the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief.
These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places, and they are certainly essential to democracy. But as the secretary general just outlined, we now need to move to implementation. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence. We will be looking to all countries to hold themselves accountable and to join us in reporting to the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights on their progress in taking these steps.
For our part, I have asked our Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, to spearhead our implementation efforts. And to build on the momentum from today’s meeting, later this year the United States intends to invite relevant experts from around the world to the first of what we hope will be a series of meetings to discuss best practices, exchange ideas, and keep us moving forward beyond the polarizing debates of the past; to build those muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance that the secretary general referenced. It is essential that we advance this new consensus and strengthen it, both at the United Nations and beyond, in order to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Government Support For Orthodox Church Questioned In Greece

Reuters today reports that the sovereign debt crisis in Greece has caused many to question the government support and tax breaks given to the Greek Orthodox Church.  Some 100,000 people have joined a Greek Facebook page, "Tax the Church." Church finances, tax payments and assets lack transparency. However campaigners claim that Greek Orthodox Church owns more land than any entity other than the state and owns 1.5% of the National Bank of Greece. The government spends 268 million Euros each year paying the salaries of 9,000 priests as well as pensions for retired clergy.  The Church says it paid 1.3 million Euros in taxes last year. The Church says payments of priests' salaries are justified by the fact that the Church handed over 96% of the property it owned to the state when Greece became independent of the Ottoman Empire in 1821. Also several ministry buildings, universities and hospitals in Athens are on church property that is leased to the state for a nominal amount.

City's Deal With Catholic High School Criticized

On Wednesday, Americans United wrote the South Bend, Indiana Common Council (full text of letter) complaining about a Council decision last month to buy an old Family Dollar store for $1.2 million and donate it to a Catholic high school which will spend $35 million on a new building on the site. The letter says that Council, in approving the transaction, misunderstood its obligations under the U.S. Constitution. Under an agreement with the city, St. Joseph's High School will allow outside athletic groups and the public use its facilities when they are not in use by the school.  In a press release Wednesday, AU said that "the public’s minimal benefit from the transaction does not excuse the constitutional violation."

Abercrombie's Enforcement of "Look Policy" Against Muslim Job Applicant Violates Title VII

In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (ND OK, July 13, 2011), an Oklahoma federal district court held that Abercrombie & Fitch violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by refusing to hire a Muslim teenager because her religious belief requiring her to wear a headscarf violates the company's "Look Policy" for sales models.  The court first held that the fact that Samantha Elauf wore a headscarf to her employment interview placed the company on notice that she would need an accommodation.  The court rejected Abercrombie's claim that granting an exemption would create an "undue hardship" because it would negatively impact Abercrombie's marketing strategy. The court, however, said the company had failed to meet its burden of proving undue hardship because it cited no studies or specific examples to support it claim. [Thanks to CCH Employment Law Daily via Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

No Jurisdiction Over Suit Against Church Claiming Governance Problems

In Fesseha v.Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Debre Meheret St. Michael's Church in Dallas, (TX App., July 12, 2011), a Texas appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over a suit by former church members against the church and its trustees for improperly conduction elections, meetings and improperly amending the bylaws and establishing a $30 per month membership fee. The court refused to apply the "neutral principles of law" approach.  A claim that the church failed to follow its bylaws on internal matters involves internal church governance and ecclesiastical concerns that civil courts cannot decide.

City Council Prayer Policy Upheld

In Rubin v. City of Lancaster, (CD CA, July 11, 2011), a California federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to prayers with references to Jesus that were delivered under the invocation policy of Lancaster, California City Council.  Under the policy, which had been approved by voters in a referendum, all religious congregations with a presence in the city are invited to volunteer to lead an invocation.  Any single congregation is limited to no more than 3 times per year, and so far everyone who has volunteered has led an invocation.  In this lawsuit, plaintiffs limited their challenge to the invocation with explicit Christian references delivered at one meeting they attended. The court held:
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Policy has been used for an improper purpose or is otherwise unconstitutional. Volunteers of numerous faiths are invited to and have given invocations before City Council meetings, and the selection process does not discriminate against any faith. 
... Determining that the April 27, 2010 invocation violated the Establishment Clause by its single reference to Jesus would require this Court to analyze the content of the prayer. But because Plaintiffs do not even claim the April 27 invocation was “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief,” this Court cannot properly perform such an analysis.... Because their evidence fails to show the April 27 invocation (or the Invocation Policy itself) would have the “effect of affiliating the government with any other one specific faith or belief,” Plaintiffs have not shown an Establishment Clause violation.
According to Wednesday's Los Angeles Daily News, plaintiffs plan to appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Austrian "Pastafarian" Gets License Wearing Pasta Strainer As Head Covering

In Austria, Niko Alm, an atheist who says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has been successful in getting authorities to issue him a drivers license with him wearing a pasta strainer as a head covering in his photo. According to BBC today, Alm decided to claim the head covering was required by his belief in "pastafarianism" after he read that one could wear a head covering in a license photo only for religious reasons.  Police, however, say that the only requirement is that the photo show the driver's face uncovered, which Alm's did. Alm said that after he applied, he was asked to submit to a medical interview to determine his mental fitness to drive.  Alm says it took 3 years for him to get the license, but police say it has been ready since 2009, but was never picked up.

Hungary Enacts Restrictive New Religion Law

MTI reports that on Monday, Hungary's Parliament, by a vote of 254-43, passed a new law on "The Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and on the Status of Churches, Religions and Religious Communities." A press release by the Institute on Religion and Public Policy (IRPP) calls it the "worst religion law in Europe." The law specifically recognizes 14 religious groups and communities. All others will need to obtain re-registration. Reports on the new law are unclear on whether re-registration requires judicial or parliamentary approval.  Only groups that have operated in Hungary for 20 years can be re-registered however, though just before final passage Parliament eliminated a provision that would also have required 1000 members to register. An analysis by IRPP says:
The Draft Law would “de-register” targeted minority faiths that have been registered as religions in Hungary since the adoption of the 1990 Religion Law, while allowing favored religious organizations to maintain their registered religious status and enjoy all the rights and privileges that flow to religious organizations under the Bill. Over a hundred religious organizations currently registered as such will be retroactively stripped of their status as religious communities and “de-registered” as religious organizations....
In response to the Institute’s Report, some proponents of this legislation in Hungary have attempted to justify these discriminatory provisions by arguing that they meet human rights standards because “deregistered” religious organizations may continue to operate as “civil associations performing religious activities”.

Irish Government Report Criticizes Cloyne Diocese Failure To Report Sex Abuse

In Ireland yesterday, the government made public a 341-page report, The Commission of Investigation Report into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne. The government commissioned the report in 2009 after the Church's own National Board for Safeguarding Children published a critical report on child protection practices in the diocese. As reported by the Irish Times, the report released yesterday strongly criticizes the Vatican. The report says in part:
The document entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response ... was agreed by the Irish Bishops’ Conference in 1996.... This document contained a detailed and easy to implement set of procedures for handling allegations, suspicions and concerns about clerical child sexual abuse....
Despite Bishop Magee’s stated position on the implementation of the Framework Document, the reality is that the guidelines set out in that document were not fully or consistently implemented in the Diocese of Cloyne in the period 1996 to 2009. The primary responsibility for the failure to implement the agreed procedures lies with Bishop Magee....  [He] took little or no active interest in the management of clerical child sexual abuse cases until 2008.... As a result of this vacuum, the diocese’s functions in the matter of clerical child sexual abuse were, by default, exercised by others, ... [principally] Monsignor O’Callaghan. He did not approve of ... the requirement to report to the civil authorities....
The reaction of the Vatican to the Framework Document was entirely unhelpful to any bishop who wanted to implement the agreed procedures.... The Congregation for the Clergy told the bishops of Ireland that the document was “not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document”. The Congregation further stated that it contained:  “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems....
This effectively gave individual Irish bishops the freedom to ignore the procedures which they had agreed and gave comfort and support to those who, like Monsignor O’Callaghan, dissented from the stated official Irish Church policy.
In reaction to the report, Justice Minster Alan Shatter said  he will introduce legislation making it a criminal offense to fail to report the sexual abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult. (Irish Times.) RTE News has a summary of the report and extensive coverage of the reaction to it by both Church and government officials. (See prior related posting.)

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions In 2011

The Guttmacher Institute yesterday reported that in the first 6 months of 2011, state legislatures enacted a record  80 new provisions restricting access to abortion. This is more than double the previous record-- 34 enacted in 2005.  The states also enacted 82 other provisions relating to reproductive health and reproductive rights.

FFRF Sues Texas Governor Over Planned Prayer Rally

The Freedom from Religion Foundation announced yesterday that it and 5 of its Houston, Texas members have filed a federal lawsuit seeking:
a declaration that Texas Governor Rick Perry’s initiation, organization, promotion and participation as governor in a prayer rally at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas, scheduled for August 6, 2011, in collaboration with the American Family Association, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 The complaint (full text) in Staley v. Perry, (SD TX, filed 7/13/2011), says that the plans for the prayer rally were preceded by an official proclamation from the governor calling on Texans to participate in a Day of Prayer and Fasting for Our Nation. In addition to a declaratory judgment, the complaint asks the court to order the governor to withdraw his permission for the American Family Association to use his written and videotaped endorsements of the rally on its website, and to enjoin his future promotion of prayer rallies or designating days of prayer in the future. (See prior related posting.)

"Sister Wives" Challenge Utah's Ban on Polygamy

A lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Utah yesterday by the polygamous family featured on the TLC series "Sister Wives" challenging the constitutionality of Utah's statute which bars polygamy.  The complaint (full text) in Brown v. Herbert, (D UT, filed 7/13/3011) summarizes the claims of Kody Brown and his 4 wives as follows:
To the extent that Article III of the Utah State Constitution, Utah Code Ann. §30-1-2, and ... §30-1-4.1 are used as the basis for the criminalization of plural relationships or families, the Brown family seeks a declaration that these laws are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment ... and the Free Exercixe, Establishment, Free Speech, and Freedom of Association Clauses of the Firat Amendment....
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, plaintiffs' lawyer filing the lawsuit-- George Washington University Prof. Jonathan Turley -- at a press conference said: "We can’t embrace privacy as a principle and pick and choose who can enjoy it."  Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says polygamy is different because it involves not just consenting adults, but also their entire families. According to AP, Utah has not prosecuted  prosecuted anyone for polygamy under its bigamy statute since 2003. However, according to the complaint in the lawsuit, the Browns have been subject to criminal investigations in Utah.