Does Utah's bigamy statute violate religious freedom under the First Amendment? State v. Green Explained

In State v. Green, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah’s bigamy statute violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause when applied to religiously motivated polygamy. The case provides important guidance on constitutional challenges to neutral laws of general applicability.

Background and Facts

Thomas Green was an avowed polygamist who participated in simultaneous conjugal relationships with multiple women, fathering approximately twenty-five children. Green avoided having more than one licensed marriage at a time by divorcing each wife before marrying the next, then continuing relationships with all the women as if no divorces had occurred. The State used Utah’s unsolemnized marriage statute to establish that Green was legally married to Linda Kunz, then prosecuted him for bigamy based on his cohabitation with other women during this marriage.

Key Legal Issues

Green raised three main challenges: (1) Utah’s bigamy statute violated his free exercise of religion, (2) the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and (3) the State’s use of the unsolemnized marriage statute was improper. The court applied correctness review to these constitutional questions of law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the Employment Division v. Smith framework, holding that neutral laws of general applicability need not be justified by compelling governmental interests even when they burden religious practices. The court found Utah’s bigamy statute both facially and operationally neutral because it prohibits bigamy for both religious and secular reasons without targeting specific religious groups. The statute also satisfied general applicability requirements because it applies equally to all violators regardless of motivation.

On vagueness, the court emphasized that Green’s conduct clearly fell within the statute’s prohibition against “cohabitation,” noting his conjugal relationships, shared surnames, children, and rotating schedule of intimate relations.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners challenging neutral laws under the Free Exercise Clause face significant hurdles under current federal constitutional jurisprudence. The court’s emphasis on adequate briefing also serves as a reminder that appellate practitioners must fully develop constitutional arguments, including any hybrid rights claims involving multiple constitutional protections, to preserve them for review.