## Facts

- Nathan and Victoria (“Vicki”) Collier were legally married on April 26, 2000, and remained married.
- Nathan was also in a committed romantic relationship with Christine Collier (also known as Christine Parkinson), and Nathan and Christine wanted to marry while Nathan remained married to Vicki.
- Vicki and Christine knew about each other and each consented to being married to Nathan at the same time.
- The three adults lived together as a plural family and jointly parented and cared for their children.
- In June 2015, Nathan and Christine applied for a marriage license in Yellowstone County, Montana.
- The application was denied. A letter from the Yellowstone County Attorney’s office explained the license could not be issued because it would place them in violation of Montana’s criminal statutes prohibiting (1) knowingly committing bigamy and (2) knowingly marrying a person who is committing bigamy.
- The denial letter did not threaten prosecution, and the Colliers alleged the state had not previously prosecuted anyone under the cited bigamy statutes.
- The Colliers filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Montana and Yellowstone County officials in their official capacities, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- They brought a pre-enforcement challenge to Montana’s criminal bigamy statutes and also challenged a Montana civil provision barring plural marriage.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district judge referred the motions to a magistrate judge for findings and recommendations.

## Issues

1. Whether Vicki Collier had Article III standing to challenge Montana’s criminal and civil anti-polygamy provisions when she was not denied a license and was not seeking to enter an additional marriage.
2. Whether Nathan and Christine Collier had standing and a ripe pre-enforcement claim to challenge Montana’s bigamy statutes based on the license denial and their asserted fear of prosecution.
3. Whether Montana’s criminal bigamy statutes and civil prohibition on plural marriage violate the First Amendment (including Free Exercise and related theories).
4. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects a fundamental right to state-recognized plural marriage, and whether the challenged laws violate substantive due process or equal protection.
5. Whether a federal district court may decline to follow Reynolds v. United States in light of later Supreme Court decisions addressing intimate relationships and marriage.

## Decision

- The magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Vicki Collier’s claims for lack of standing because she had not applied for a license, had not been denied one, and was not seeking to marry another person.
- As to Nathan and Christine, the magistrate judge treated the license denial and the existence of criminal prohibitions as sufficient to reach the merits of their constitutional challenge.
- On the merits, the magistrate judge recommended upholding Montana’s criminal bigamy statutes and the civil restriction on plural marriage, concluding that existing Supreme Court precedent—particularly Reynolds—foreclosed recognition of a constitutional right to plural marriage.
- The magistrate judge further recommended rejecting the Colliers’ First and Fourteenth Amendment theories under the applicable standards of review.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent; a plaintiff who is not personally denied a benefit and is not personally subject to the challenged prohibition generally lacks standing.
- In a pre-enforcement challenge to criminal statutes, courts consider whether the plaintiff faces a real and immediate threat of enforcement; a past denial of a marriage license tied to the challenged statutes may supply a concrete injury for declaratory or injunctive relief.
- Lower federal courts are bound by controlling Supreme Court precedent and may not treat it as effectively overruled absent clear direction from the Supreme Court.
- Prohibitions on plural marriage have been upheld under Reynolds, and a district court applying Reynolds does not recognize plural marriage as a fundamental right protected by substantive due process.
- Neutral, generally applicable laws regulating conduct, rather than targeting religious belief, are reviewed under current Free Exercise doctrine without heightened scrutiny; related First Amendment theories do not convert a restriction on state-recognized marriage status into a protected speech or association right.
- Where no suspect classification or fundamental right is found, marriage regulations are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny, and the state may define the terms and incidents of civil marriage.

## Conclusion

In findings and recommendations issued at summary judgment, the magistrate judge concluded that Vicki Collier lacked standing and that Nathan and Christine’s constitutional challenges to Montana’s criminal bigamy statutes and civil ban on plural marriage failed on the merits under controlling precedent, recommending judgment for the defendant officials and denial of the Colliers’ requested declaratory and injunctive relief.


Collier v. Fox, 2018 WL 1247411 (2018)