Collier v. Fox

2018 WL1247411 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Nathan and Vicki were legally married in Dillon, South Carolina, on April 26, 2000. Nathan also is in a committed romantic relationship with Christine, and they desire to legally marry. Vicki and Christine are aware of Nathan's relationship with one another, and each consents to be married to Nathan simultaneously. Ps have 'committed to raise, support, nurture, and care for one another's children, including [Christine's] children from a prior marriage.' The Colliers have parented their eight children jointly for several years. There is no evidence to suggest that either of Nathan's romantic relationships - with Vicki or with Christine - involves dishonesty, coercion, fraud, abuse, or violence. Nathan and Christine went to the Yellowstone County Clerk to apply for a marriage license; the application was denied. Ps were informed that their request for a marriage license could not be granted because granting the license would place Ps in violation of Montana law, citing Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-5-611 and 612. The statutes criminalize entering into multiple marriages and marrying a person knowing that the person is married to another. Ps brought this action challenging the validity of what they characterize as Montana's anti-polygamy statutes. Ps' Complaint contains the following seven claims: A violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, criminalization of the exercise of fundamental liberty interests protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, violation the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, unequal legal treatment of polygamous marriage violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, a violation the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right of free association under the First Amendment, and numerous rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ps have filed a motion for summary judgment, generally arguing that Montana's criminal and civil anti-polygamy statutes are unconstitutional and violate their First and Fourteenth Amendments rights. D maintains that the Colliers have failed to establish either the Court's authority to disregard Reynolds 98 U.S. 145 or, assuming the Court has such authority, legal justification for doing so. Ds filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.