Abstract
Potter v. Murray City raises the question of whether courts may continue to rely on an outdated rationale to reject a free exercise challenge to the prohibition of polygamy. Royston Potter was a Murray City police officer who was fired because he had two wives, a felony under Utah law. Potter sought an injunction against the city's termination action on the grounds that it violated his first amendment rights. In Federal District Court for the District of Utah, the plaintiff argued that he had a constitutional right to practice polygamy in pursuit of his religious belief. The court held that neither the state law against polygamy nor his termination as a police officer violated plaintiff's first amendment rights in light of the state's compelling interest in maintaining monogamy. In a brief opinion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court
Recommended Citation
Saltzman, Penelope W.
(1986)
"Potter v. Murray City: Another Interpretation ofPolygamy and the First Amendment,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1986:
No.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1986/iss2/5