Brown v. Buhman

Citation822 F.3d 1151
Decision Date13 May 2016
Docket NumberNo. 14–4117.,14–4117.
PartiesKody BROWN; Meri Brown; Janelle Brown ; Christine Brown; Robyn Sullivan, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Jeffrey R. BUHMAN, Defendant–Appellant. Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund; Sound Choices Coalition, Inc.; Cato Institute, Amici Curiae.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

822 F.3d 1151

Kody BROWN; Meri Brown; Janelle Brown ; Christine Brown; Robyn Sullivan, Plaintiffs–Appellees
v.
Jeffrey R. BUHMAN, Defendant–Appellant.


Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund; Sound Choices Coalition, Inc.; Cato Institute, Amici Curiae.

No. 14–4117.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 13, 2016.


822 F.3d 1154

Parker Douglas, Utah Federal Solicitor, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT, appearing for Appellant.

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University School of Law, Washington, DC (Adam Alba, Magleby & Greenwood, Salt Lake City, UT, with him on the briefs), appearing for Appellees.

Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law, Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, Los Angeles, California, and Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, filed an amicus brief for Cato Institute.

Lawrence John Joseph, Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, DC, filed an amicus curiae brief for Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.

Christian A. Kesselring, Wasatch Law Group, Heber City, Utah, filed an amicus curiae brief for Sound Choices Coalition, Inc.

Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the appellees' Petition for Rehearing En

822 F.3d 1155

Banc. Upon consideration, any implicit request for panel rehearing is denied by the original panel members. For clarification, however, the panel has decided, sua sponte, to amend the original decision. A copy of the amended decision is attached to this order, and the clerk is directed to reissue the opinion nunc pro tunc to the original filing date.

The request for en banc rehearing and the amended opinion were also transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service and who are not recused. As no member of the original panel or the en banc court requested that a poll be called, the petition for en banc review is denied.

MATHESON, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

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

(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.

Kody Brown, Meri Brown, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Robyn Sullivan (“the Browns”) form a “plural family.” Kody Brown is legally married to Meri Brown and “spiritually married” to the other three women, whom he calls “sister wives.” When the family became the subject of a TLC reality television show in 2010, the Lehi Police Department opened an investigation of the Browns for violating the Statute. The Browns then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal district court against the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Utah and the Utah County Attorney. Claiming the Statute infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Browns sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the Statute against them.

The district court dismissed the Governor and Attorney General. The Utah County Attorney's Office (“UCAO”) subsequently closed its file on the Browns and adopted a policy (“the UCAO 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 fall into neither category. Nonetheless, the district court denied the Utah County Attorney's motion to dismiss the case as moot and instead granted summary judgment to the Browns.

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 Policy, 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.

822 F.3d 1156

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Kody Brown, a former resident of Lehi, Utah, is legally married to Meri Brown. He is also “spiritually married”—but not legally married—to Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Robyn Sullivan, who “consider themselves committed to him as ‘sister wives.’ ” App., Vol. 1 at 23, 37.1 Together, the Browns form a “plural family.” Id. at 36.

The Browns belong to the Apostolic United Brethren Church (“AUB”), which views polygamy as “a core religious practice.” App., Vol. 3 at 564.2 Consistent with AUB teaching, they “believe that only through celestial marriage can they ensure the salvation of their souls following death.” App., Vol. 1 at 36.

In September 2010, TLC began airing “Sister Wives,” a reality television show featuring the Browns that “explores the daily issues and realities of a plural family.” App., Vol. 3 at 565. On the show, the Browns have discussed their religious belief in polygamy and defended their polygamist lifestyle.

Viewers of the show contacted the Lehi Police Department to “inquir[e] what the department intended to do” about the Browns. App., Vol. 2 at 246. The day after the first episode aired, the Department publicly announced it was investigating the Browns for violations of the Statute.

In October 2010, the Lehi Police Department forwarded the results of its investigation to the UCAO. Following standard practice, the UCAO opened a case file on the Browns. Fearful they would be criminally prosecuted, the Browns moved to Nevada in January 2011. Mr. Buhman was quoted in a January 2011 media report as saying that despite the Browns' move, his office would not rule out the possibility of prosecution.

B. Procedural Background

1. The Browns' Complaint

On July 13, 2011, before the UCAO had completed its investigation, the Browns filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Their complaint named Jeffrey Buhman, County Attorney for Utah County; Gary Herbert, Governor of the State of Utah; and Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General of the State of Utah (collectively, “Defendants”), all in their official capacities.

The Browns alleged the Statute violates (1) their substantive due process right “to freely make personal decisions relating to procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing,” both on its face and as applied, and the due process right not to be subject to vague criminal laws, App., Vol. 1 at 47; (2) the Equal Protection Clause, both on its face and as applied, because it treats religiously motivated polygamists differently from other people; (3) their right to the free exercise of religion, both on its face and as applied; (4) their free speech rights because prosecutors used the Statute to single them out based on their public statements endorsing polygamy; (5) their freedom of association, both on its face and as applied, because its

822 F.3d 1157

application has deprived the Browns of “the right to associate with other like-minded citizens who believe that consenting adults should be able to maintain private relations and unions without interference from the state,” id. at 52; and (6) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In their seventh and final cause of action, the Browns asserted Defendants were “in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they had deprived the Browns of their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. Id. at 53.

The Browns' prayer for relief requested (1) a “declar[ation] that [the Statute] violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise, Establishment, Free Speech, and Freedom of Association Clauses of the First Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a “preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining enforcement or application of [the Statute] against the Brown family”; (3) an award of “reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in maintaining this action”; and (4) “such other relief as [the district court] may deem just and proper.” Id. at 54.

In asserting the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4), the complaint explained that “this action seeks equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Act of Congress.” Id. at 19. Additionally, the complaint's “Nature of the Action” section provides, “Through this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Brown family seeks a declaration that [the Statute] is unconstitutional.... The Browns further seek a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
278 cases
  • Hoogerhuis v. Birnbaum
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 23 Marzo 2021
    ...45 (1989). Section 1983 is a "remedial vehicle for raising claims based on the violation of constitutional rights." Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.9 (10th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). It does not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity, and the states, their agencies, and t......
  • Cox v. Civil Courthouse State Judges
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 27 Febrero 2021
    ...1307-08. Section "1983 is a remedial vehicle for raising claims based on the violation of constitutional rights." Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.9 (10th Cir. 2016). It does not abrogate the State's sovereign immunity, and neither the State, its agencies, or its programs qualify as "......
  • ETP Rio Rancho Park, LLC v. Grisham
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ...of repetition, yet evading review.’ " N.M. Health Connections v. United States HHS, 946 F.3d at 1159 (quoting Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1166 (10th Cir. 2016) ). "This exception ‘applies where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessati......
  • Kellogg v. Watts Guerra LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 26 Julio 2022
    ...injury and the conduct complained of," and• a "likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Brown v. Buhman , 822 F.3d 1151, 1164 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The kind of injury-in-fact required for an actual controversy depends on the eleme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CHICKEN STEALING: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE PATH TO POLYGAMY.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 84 No. 2, June 2021
    • 22 Junio 2021
    ...had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. See id. at 1113. (343) Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Utah 2013), vacated as moot, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. (344) See id. at 1176, 1178 n.5. (345) See id. at 1178-79; Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1155 (10th Cir. 2016). (346) Brown, 822......
  • MANUFACTURING SOVEREIGN STATE MOOTNESS.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 1, October 2021
    • 1 Octubre 2021
    ...199, 203 (1968)). (33.) 15 MARTIN H. REDISH, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE [section] 101.99[2][a] (3d ed. 2021). (34.) See Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1176-77 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding that a prosecutor's statement under penalty of perjury that he would not enforce a bigamy statute, despite ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT