The Supreme Court rejected religious belief as a defense to criminal polygamy

Evidence

In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act, aimed explicitly at the Mormons; it effec­ tively outlawed polygamy in the territories, including Utah. A man named George Reynolds was indicted, accused of marrying two women, convicted, and sentenced to prison. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. His defense was freedom of religion—​ his rights under the First Amendment. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed Reynolds’s conviction. Polygamy was “odious”; Congress was right to declare it a crime. Merely because polygamy was a tenet of someone’s religion did not excuse the practice: if a person believed that “human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship,” was that an excuse? Or if a wife “religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband,” would the state allow this to happen? — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 1416

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Civil disobedience challenges formally valid laws in the name of higher duty — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 1191; Polygamy jurisprudence racialized Islam by treating the practice as foreign and treasonable; Supreme Court racialized Mormons by associating polygamy with Asian and African peoples — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim: When Racism Quashes…, 328 (+3 more)

Broader Connections