Petitioner
George Reynolds
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
The Morrill Act, which made practice of polygamy a crime, violated his FirstAmendment right to freedom of religion.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
George W. Biddle and Ben Sheeks
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Charles Devens, U.S. Attorney General, and Samuel F. Phillips, U.S. SolicitorGeneral
Justices for the Court
Joseph P. Bradley, Nathan Clifford, Stephen Johnson Field, John Marshall Harlan I, Ward Hunt, Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Noah Haynes Swayne, Morrison Remick Waite (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 May 1879
Decision
Polygamy was not protected by freedom of religion.
Significance
The Mormons, who settled Utah, permitted members of their religion to practice polygamy. In Reynolds, the Supreme Court held that federal legislation banning polygamy was constitutional and did not violate the Mormons' FirstAmendment right to free exercise of their religion. The Reynolds casestill remains the leading Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment does not protect polygamy.
After a somewhat checkered history and a long trek westward, in the mid-nineteenth century the followers of a religious prophet named Joseph Smith settledthe western lands that became the state of Utah. Their religion was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but most people called them the Mormons. They held a variety of novel beliefs, ranging from their conviction that Jesus Christ visited the American Indians to a prohibition against caffeine drinks such as coffee and tea. Their most controversial belief, however, was that a man could have more than one wife.
The rest of the United States knew about the Mormon practice of polygamy since 1852. Most Americans were traditional Christians and believed in monogamy,or having only one spouse. Until the Mormons arrived, however, there were nofederal laws against bigamy or polygamy. The government left the Mormons alone for many years, but in 1862 President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act into law. The Morrill Act outlawed polygamy throughout the United States in general and in Utah in particular. The government did not do much to enforce the law, however, because it was preoccupied by the Civil War.
Congress Strengthens the Anti-Bigamy Law
After the Civil War, Congress regained interest in the question of Mormon polygamy. Congress strengthened the Morill Act by passing the Poland Law in 1874. The Poland Law increased the powers of the federal judiciary within the territory of Utah. Because federal judges were federally appointed, they were more likely to be non-Mormons and thus more aggressive about enforcing the law.
Mormon leader Brigham Young and George Q. Cannon, territorial delegate to Congress and advisor to Young, decided to challenge the federal government in court. They were confident that if the government tried any Mormons for bigamythe U.S. Supreme Court would throw out the convictions, based on the First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion. Therefore, they planned toarrange for a "test case" to be brought to court. Young and Cannon chose Young's personal secretary, a devout Mormon and practicing polygamist, George Reynolds.
Young and Cannon were successful: the government indicted Reynolds for bigamyin October of 1874. Reynolds had to be re-tried, however, due to jury selection problems. The government indicted Reynolds again in October of 1875.
The government charged that Reynolds was currently married to both Mary Ann Tuddenham and Amelia Jane Schofield. The prosecution had little difficulty inproving that Reynolds lived with both women, despite some trouble in servingAmelia Jane Schofield with her subpoena. The following dialogue is an excerptfrom the prosecution's questioning of Arthur Pratt, a deputy marshall sent to serve a subpoena on Amelia:
Following more evidence of Reynolds's two marriages, which the defense had nochance of refuting, Judge White gave instructions to the jury. White's instructions smashed Reynolds's defense that by virtue of the First Amendment he was innocent because of his Mormon religious beliefs:
The jury found Reynolds guilty on 10 December 1875. On 6 July 1876, the territorial Supreme Court affirmed his sentence. Reynolds appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On 14 and 15 November 1878, Biddle and Sheeks argued to the Supreme Court that it must overturn Reynolds's conviction on the basis of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court Destroys the Mormons' Hopes
On 6 January 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court said that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy, and based its decision upon historic American cultural values:
Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld Reynolds's sentence of two years imprisonment and a $500 fine. The Supreme Court's decision rocked the Mormons, who initially vowed to defy the Court but later seemed to accept the inevitable. In1890, Mormon leader Wilford Woodruff issued a document called the Manifesto,which terminated "any marriages forbidden by the law of the land." After 1890, most Mormons abandoned polygamy.
The Reynolds case is still the leading Supreme Court decision that theFirst Amendment does not protect polygamy. In 1984, a U.S. District Court considered the case of Utah policeman Royston Potter, who was fired for bigamy.District Court Judge Sherman Christensen rejected Potter's First Amendment defense, and the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Christensen's ruling. In October of 1985 the Supreme Court refused to hear Potter's appeal. By not listening to cases like Potter's, the Supreme Court has effectively decided to keep Reynolds as the law of the land.
Many legal scholars have criticized the Supreme Court for not modifying or overturning Reynolds. It has been over 100 years since the decision washanded down, and in many subsequent cases the Supreme Court has greatly expanded the First Amendment's legal protection for free exercise of religion. Further, in the 1960s and early 1970s the Supreme Court increased the Constitution's protection for the civil rights of women, minorities and other persons whose equality under the law had never been a part of the old "common law" cited in Reynolds. Logically, therefore, one could expect the Supreme Court to reconsider its position on the constitutionality of polygamy. To date,however, the Supreme Court has not reversed the ruling on polygamy it gave inReynolds.
Related Cases
George Reynolds
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
The Morrill Act, which made practice of polygamy a crime, violated his FirstAmendment right to freedom of religion.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
George W. Biddle and Ben Sheeks
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
Charles Devens, U.S. Attorney General, and Samuel F. Phillips, U.S. SolicitorGeneral
Justices for the Court
Joseph P. Bradley, Nathan Clifford, Stephen Johnson Field, John Marshall Harlan I, Ward Hunt, Samuel Freeman Miller, William Strong, Noah Haynes Swayne, Morrison Remick Waite (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 May 1879
Decision
Polygamy was not protected by freedom of religion.
Significance
The Mormons, who settled Utah, permitted members of their religion to practice polygamy. In Reynolds, the Supreme Court held that federal legislation banning polygamy was constitutional and did not violate the Mormons' FirstAmendment right to free exercise of their religion. The Reynolds casestill remains the leading Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment does not protect polygamy.
After a somewhat checkered history and a long trek westward, in the mid-nineteenth century the followers of a religious prophet named Joseph Smith settledthe western lands that became the state of Utah. Their religion was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but most people called them the Mormons. They held a variety of novel beliefs, ranging from their conviction that Jesus Christ visited the American Indians to a prohibition against caffeine drinks such as coffee and tea. Their most controversial belief, however, was that a man could have more than one wife.
The rest of the United States knew about the Mormon practice of polygamy since 1852. Most Americans were traditional Christians and believed in monogamy,or having only one spouse. Until the Mormons arrived, however, there were nofederal laws against bigamy or polygamy. The government left the Mormons alone for many years, but in 1862 President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act into law. The Morrill Act outlawed polygamy throughout the United States in general and in Utah in particular. The government did not do much to enforce the law, however, because it was preoccupied by the Civil War.
Congress Strengthens the Anti-Bigamy Law
After the Civil War, Congress regained interest in the question of Mormon polygamy. Congress strengthened the Morill Act by passing the Poland Law in 1874. The Poland Law increased the powers of the federal judiciary within the territory of Utah. Because federal judges were federally appointed, they were more likely to be non-Mormons and thus more aggressive about enforcing the law.
Mormon leader Brigham Young and George Q. Cannon, territorial delegate to Congress and advisor to Young, decided to challenge the federal government in court. They were confident that if the government tried any Mormons for bigamythe U.S. Supreme Court would throw out the convictions, based on the First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion. Therefore, they planned toarrange for a "test case" to be brought to court. Young and Cannon chose Young's personal secretary, a devout Mormon and practicing polygamist, George Reynolds.
Young and Cannon were successful: the government indicted Reynolds for bigamyin October of 1874. Reynolds had to be re-tried, however, due to jury selection problems. The government indicted Reynolds again in October of 1875.
The government charged that Reynolds was currently married to both Mary Ann Tuddenham and Amelia Jane Schofield. The prosecution had little difficulty inproving that Reynolds lived with both women, despite some trouble in servingAmelia Jane Schofield with her subpoena. The following dialogue is an excerptfrom the prosecution's questioning of Arthur Pratt, a deputy marshall sent to serve a subpoena on Amelia:
Question: State to the court what efforts you have made to serve it.
Answer: I went to the residence of Mr. Reynolds, and a lady was there, his first wife, and she told me that this woman was not there; that that was the only home that she had, but that she hadn't been there for two or three weeks. I went again this morning, and she was not there.
Question: Do you know anything about her home, where she resides?
Answer: I know where I found her before.
Question: Where?
Answer: At the same place.
Following more evidence of Reynolds's two marriages, which the defense had nochance of refuting, Judge White gave instructions to the jury. White's instructions smashed Reynolds's defense that by virtue of the First Amendment he was innocent because of his Mormon religious beliefs:
[if you findthat Reynolds] deliberately married a second time, having a first wife living, the want of consciousness of evil intent, the want of understanding on hispart that he was committing crime, did not excuse him, but the law inexorably, in such cases, implies criminal intent . . .
The jury found Reynolds guilty on 10 December 1875. On 6 July 1876, the territorial Supreme Court affirmed his sentence. Reynolds appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On 14 and 15 November 1878, Biddle and Sheeks argued to the Supreme Court that it must overturn Reynolds's conviction on the basis of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court Destroys the Mormons' Hopes
On 6 January 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court said that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy, and based its decision upon historic American cultural values:
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and,until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy hasbeen treated as an offence against society . . . In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.
Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld Reynolds's sentence of two years imprisonment and a $500 fine. The Supreme Court's decision rocked the Mormons, who initially vowed to defy the Court but later seemed to accept the inevitable. In1890, Mormon leader Wilford Woodruff issued a document called the Manifesto,which terminated "any marriages forbidden by the law of the land." After 1890, most Mormons abandoned polygamy.
The Reynolds case is still the leading Supreme Court decision that theFirst Amendment does not protect polygamy. In 1984, a U.S. District Court considered the case of Utah policeman Royston Potter, who was fired for bigamy.District Court Judge Sherman Christensen rejected Potter's First Amendment defense, and the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Christensen's ruling. In October of 1985 the Supreme Court refused to hear Potter's appeal. By not listening to cases like Potter's, the Supreme Court has effectively decided to keep Reynolds as the law of the land.
Many legal scholars have criticized the Supreme Court for not modifying or overturning Reynolds. It has been over 100 years since the decision washanded down, and in many subsequent cases the Supreme Court has greatly expanded the First Amendment's legal protection for free exercise of religion. Further, in the 1960s and early 1970s the Supreme Court increased the Constitution's protection for the civil rights of women, minorities and other persons whose equality under the law had never been a part of the old "common law" cited in Reynolds. Logically, therefore, one could expect the Supreme Court to reconsider its position on the constitutionality of polygamy. To date,however, the Supreme Court has not reversed the ruling on polygamy it gave inReynolds.
Related Cases
- Potter v. Murray City, 760 F.2d 1065 (10th Cir. 1985).
- Employment Division v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 (1988).
User Comments Add a comment…