5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH
(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21 )(' $SS 3 WK &LU
)LOH 1DPH DS
81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6 )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
/(:(// 0$5&80 ;
3ODLQWLII$SSHOODQW 1R
Y
!
-$0(6 0&:+257(5DV LQWHULP6KHULIIRI3XODVNL &RXQW\.HQWXFN\ 'HIHQGDQW$SSHOOHH
1
$SSHDOIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW IRUWKH(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI.HQWXFN\DW/RQGRQ 1R ²-HQQLIHU%&RIIPDQ'LVWULFW-XGJH $UJXHG 0D\
'HFLGHGDQG)LOHG 6HSWHPEHU %HIRUH 0$57,1&KLHI&LUFXLW-XGJH 6,/(5DQG&/$< &LUFXLW-XGJHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&2816(/
$5*8(' -DPHV7*LOEHUW&2<*,/%(57 *,/%(57 5LFKPRQG .HQWXFN\ IRU $SSHOODQW 'DYLG :KDOLQ /$1'580 6+286(/RXLVYLOOH.HQWXFN\IRU$SSHOOHH 21 %5,() -DPHV 7 *LOEHUW &2< *,/%(57
0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
*,/%(57 5LFKPRQG .HQWXFN\ IRU $SSHOODQW 'DYLG ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO :KDOLQ/$1'580 6+286(/RXLVYLOOH.HQWXFN\IRU SURWHFWLRQ ZHLJK DJDLQVW ILQGLQJ 3ODLQWLII¶V UHODWLRQVKLS $SSHOOHH ZDUUDQWVVXFKSURWHFWLRQLQWKHLQVWDQWFDVH,FRQFXULQWKH MXGJPHQWRIWKH&RXUW
6,/(5 - GHOLYHUHG WKH RSLQLRQ RI WKH FRXUW LQ ZKLFK 0$57,1&-MRLQHG&/$<- SS GHOLYHUHGD VHSDUDWHRSLQLRQFRQFXUULQJLQWKHMXGJPHQW BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
23,1,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6,/(5&LUFXLW-XGJH Plaintiff Lewell Marcum filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the late Sam Catron, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pulaski County, Kentucky ("Catron" or "Sheriff"), alleging that he was fired as a result of his intimate relationship and cohabitation with a married woman in violation of his right of association as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Catron based on its conclusion that his adulterous relationship was not constitutionally protected. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Background
The parties agree that the basic facts in this case concerning the relationship between Lewell Marcum and Rena Abbott are not in dispute. Marcum was hired as a Pulaski County deputy sheriff in February 1986. He separated from his wife on May 8, 1997. Prior to the separation, Marcum lived with his wife and their two children in the martial residence, except for two brief periods in 1996. His divorce was not final until March 11, 1999.
During the course of his work as a deputy sheriff, Marcum met Rena Abbott in 1994 or 1995. When the two met, Abbott was married and living with her husband and their children. From the initial meeting until their cohabitation, Marcum and 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ , EHOLHYH WKDW WKH VKRUW GXUDWLRQ RI WKH Abbott were just "good friends" whose respective spouses and UHODWLRQVKLS IDFWRUV LQWR ZKHWKHU LW VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG families were social acquaintances whose association was FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ,GDW marked by family outings and get-togethers.
3ODLQWLII¶VUHODWLRQVKLSDOVRGLIIHUVPDUNHGO\IURPWKHW\SH As an informant, Abbott frequently met with Marcum to RIUHODWLRQVKLSDWLVVXHLQ%ULJJVZKHUHWKLV&RXUWVXPPDULO\ discuss cases. At some point, at least by June 1996, their DIILUPHG WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW¶V ILQGLQJ WKDW WKH SODLQWLII¶V relationship had progressed sufficiently to attract the attention GLVFKDUJH YLRODWHG KLV ULJKWV WR SULYDF\ DQG LQWLPDWH of Chief Deputy Swartz, who counseled Marcum about DVVRFLDWLRQ 3ODLQWLII FDQQRW GHQ\ RQ WKLV UHFRUG WKDW KLV Abbott’s visits to his office and the courthouse. The UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK $EERWW EHFDPH D SXEOLF PDWWHU DQG ZDV relationship had become the subject of rumors in and around LQWHUWZLQHGZLWKDQGDIIHFWHGKLVMRESHUIRUPDQFH,QGHHG both the sheriff’s department and the courthouse. ZHKDYHQRWHGWKDW³>W@KHVLJQLILFDQFHRI%ULJJVOLHVLQWKH Additionally, Sheriff Catron received numerous complaints IDFWWKDWWKHRIILFHULQWKDWFDVHZDVGLVPLVVHGVROHO\EHFDXVH concerning Marcum’s association with Abbott from RIKLVOLYLQJVWDWXVZLWKRXWDQ\UHIHUHQFHDVWRKRZWKDWVWDWXV employees within his department, as well as persons working FRXOGKDYHDIIHFWHGKLVSHUIRUPDQFHDVDQRIILFHU´+XJKHV at the courthouse and various citizens within the community. )GDW3ODLQWLIIPHW$EERWWRQWKHMREZKHUHVKH VHUYHGDVDFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDQW KHZDVUHSULPDQGHGIRU The relationship reached a turning point in September WKHWLPHKHVSHQWZLWKKHUZKLOHRQGXW\ DQGRQDWOHDVWRQH 1997. While on duty on September 4, Marcum informed RFFDVLRQVKRUWO\EHIRUHKLVGLVFKDUJHKDGDSXEOLFDOWHUFDWLRQ Abbott that her husband was making passes at her best friend. ZLWKKLVDGXOWGDXJKWHURYHUWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDWKLVZRUNSODFH Abbott asked Marcum to go with her to confront the woman, &I %ULJJV )6XSS DW QRWLQJ WKDW SODLQWLII KDG which he agreed to do. After receiving confirmation of SHUIRUPHG KLV GXWLHV VDWLVIDFWRULO\ XS XQWLO WKH WLPH RI KLV Marcum’s information, Abbott moved out of the marital VXVSHQVLRQ DQG WKDW SODLQWLII KLPVHOI EURXJKW KLV OLYLQJ residence and into her brother’s cottage where she remained DUUDQJHPHQWVWRWKHDWWHQWLRQRIKLVVXSHULRU with her children until September 9 or 10. During her stay at the cottage, Abbott discussed with Marcum her inability to 7KH 6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVKHOGWKDWWKHUHDUHOLPLWVRQWKH rent a place of her own and the possibility of their renting a W\SHV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW PLJKW ZDUUDQW FRQVWLWXWLRQDO place together, sharing expenses. There had been no SURWHFWLRQ 5REHUWV 86 DW $OWKRXJK VXFK discussion of cohabitation between Marcum and Abbott prior SURWHFWLRQLVH[WHQGHGEH\RQGIDPLOLDOUHODWLRQVKLSVWKXVIDU to Abbott’s leaving her husband. WKH &RXUW KDV QHYHUWKHOHVV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV PRVWOLNHO\WRZDUUDQWVXFKSURWHFWLRQDUHWKRVHWKDWLQYROYH The two then rented a townhouse and began living together ³GHHSDWWDFKPHQWVDQGFRPPLWPHQWV´LQZKLFKRQHVKDUHV on September 9 or 10. Marcum testified that they were not DPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKRVH³SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRIRQH¶VOLIH´,G contemplating sharing a life together, or anything of that DW %HFDXVH,ILQGWKDWWKHREMHFWLYHIDFWRUVWKDWWKH nature when they assumed their cohabitation. Abbott testified 6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVLQVWUXFWHGFRXUWVWRHPSOR\LQGHWHUPLQLQJ that at the time they moved into the townhouse, the arrangement was strictly a roommate type relationship with both paying their share of the costs. Marcum also testified 7KLV LV QRW WR H[SUHVV DQ RSLQLRQ RQ WKH XOWLPDWH UHDVRQ IRU that he and Abbott did not engage in sexual relations until 3ODLQWLII¶V GLVFKDUJH DV WKLV PD\ EH GLVSXWHG 7KLV LV VLPSO\ WR SRLQW RXW after they moved in together. Abbott’s testimony, however, WKDW 3ODLQWLII FDQQRW FODLP RQ WKLV UHFRUG WKDW KLV UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV D SXUHO\ SULYDWH DIIDLU WKDW GLG QRW DIIHFW KLV GXWLHV places the date of their first sexual relations on September 5, 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
the day after she left her husband and prior to her cohabitation YLRODWLYHRIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDVWDWHFRQVWLWXWLRQDODPHQGPHQW with Marcum. Noting this inconsistency, but viewing the WKDWDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVUHSHDOHGH[LVWLQJODZWKDWEDQQHG facts in the light most favorable to Marcum, the district court GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW KRPRVH[XDOV DQG QRWLQJ ZLWKRXW found that Marcum and Abbott were romantically involved to UHIHUHQFH WR %RZHUV WKDW UHDFK RI DPHQGPHQW FRXOG some degree when they moved in together. SRWHQWLDOO\VXEMHFWWKLVJURXSWRDUELWUDU\GLVFULPLQDWLRQ %XW VHHLGDW FRQWHQGLQJWKDWVWDWHDPHQGPHQWGHSULYLQJ Regardless of their relationship prior to their cohabitation, KRPRVH[XDOVRIULJKWVZDVUDWLRQDOLQDVPXFKDV&RXUWKDG it is undisputed that Marcum and Abbott were romantically KHOG LQ %RZHUV WKDW IURP WKH LQFHSWLRQ RI WKH FRXQWU\ involved during the time they lived together and certainly at KRPRVH[XDOFRQGXFWZDVDFULPH 6FDOLD-GLVVHQWLQJ the time of Marcum’s dismissal. After learning of this living arrangement, Sheriff Catron told Marcum that either he or ,QDQ\HYHQW,DJUHHZLWKWKHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQWKDW3ODLQWLII Abbott would have to move out. Marcum was discharged on IDLOVWRVKRZWKDWDQDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHREMHFWLYHIDFWRUVRIKLV September 19, 1997, upon his perceived failure to comply UHODWLRQVKLSSODFHVLWDWWKHHQGRIWKHVSHFWUXPZLWKWKRVH with Catron’s directive. The living arrangement between UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV IRXQG ZDUUDQW Marcum and Abbott lasted approximately one month.2Q FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQXQGHUWKH)LUVW$PHQGPHQW¶VULJKW 2FWREHU$EERWWOHIWWRUHFRQFLOHZLWKKHUKXVEDQG7KH RILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQ$OWKRXJK3ODLQWLII¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWK PDLQUHDVRQVKHFLWHGIRUOHDYLQJZDVWKDWKHUROGHVWGDXJKWHU 5HQD$EERWWLQYROYHGRQO\WZRLQGLYLGXDOVDQGZDVVH[XDOLQ GLG QRW JHW DORQJ ZLWK 0DUFXP 6KH DOVR WHVWLILHG WKDW QDWXUH WKH UHFRUG GRHV QRW VXSSRUW WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKLV 0DUFXP³ZDVJHWWLQJWRRVHULRXVDQG>VKH@MXVWZDVQ¶WUHDG\ UHODWLRQVKLSZDVHQWHUHGLQWRDQGPDLQWDLQHG WRIRUPGHHS IRUWKHUHODWLRQVKLS´ SHUVRQDOFRPPLWPHQWVDQGDWWDFKPHQWV5REHUWV86DW 5DWKHULQDVVHVVLQJWKHUHODWLRQVKLS¶VSXUSRVHQRW 0DUFXP ILOHG D 86& DFWLRQ IRU ZURQJIXO RQO\ZHUHERWK3ODLQWLIIDQG$EERWWPDUULHGWRRWKHUSHRSOH WHUPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW 6KHULII &DWURQ LQ KLV LQGLYLGXDO DQG EXW $EERWW WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH SXUSRVH RI WKHLU PRYLQJ LQ RIILFLDO FDSDFLW\ DOOHJLQJ WKDW KH ZDV ILUHG EHFDXVH RI KLV WRJHWKHU ZDV PHUHO\ LQWHQGHG WR EH D ³URRPPDWH W\SH RI UHODWLRQVKLSDQGFRKDELWDWLRQZLWK$EERWWLQYLRODWLRQRIKLV DUUDQJHPHQW´)XUWKHU3ODLQWLIIFDQQRWFODLPWKDWRWKHUVWUXO\ FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWV7KHGLVWULFWFRXUWGLVPLVVHG0DUFXP¶V ZHUH H[FOXGHG IURP WKH FULWLFDO DVSHFWV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS )LUVW$PHQGPHQWFODLPVDQGKLVIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQFODLP LQDVPXFKDV$EERWWOHIWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDQGWKHUHVLGHQFHVKH DJDLQVW&DWURQLQKLVLQGLYLGXDOFDSDFLW\RQWKHJURXQGVRI VKDUHGZLWK3ODLQWLIIZLWKLQDSSUR[LPDWHO\RQHPRQWKVRWKDW TXDOLILHGLPPXQLW\7KHRQO\FODLPVZKLFKVXUYLYHGZHUH VKH FRXOG UHFRQFLOH ZLWK KHU RZQ KXVEDQG 8QOLNH WKH 0DUFXP¶VIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQFODLPDJDLQVW&DWURQLQKLV RIILFLDOFDSDFLW\DQGKLVSHQGHQWVWDWHODZFODLPV7KHFRXUW UHVHUYHG MXGJPHQW UHJDUGLQJ WKH IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH DGXOWHURXV QDWXUH RI D UHODWLRQVKLS LV D IDFWRU WKDW FODLP$IWHUH[WHQGLQJ0DUFXPWLPHLQZKLFKWRGHYHORSWKH VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH
IDFWVDERXWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWFRQFOXGHGWKDW DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV KHOG WKDW D EURDG UDQJH RI UHODWLRQVKLSV H[LVW ³WKDW PD\ PDNH JUHDWHU RU OHVVHU FODLPV WR FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ IURP SDUWLFXODU LQFXUVLRQV E\ WKH 6WDWH´ 5REHUWV
86 DW 7KRVH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH &RXUW KDV PRVW UHDGLO\ 0DUFXP DUJXHV WKDW WKH XOWLPDWH GXUDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV QRW DIIRUGHG SURWHFWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ LQFOXGH WKRVH SHUWDLQLQJ WR PDUULDJH DQG UHOHYDQW WR WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IDPLO\ ,G DW $V DW OHDVW RQH FRXUW LQ WKLV FLUFXLW KDV QRWHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SURWHFWHG DW WKH WLPH KH ZDV GLVPLVVHG :H DJUHH ZLWK ³DGXOWHURXV FRQGXFW LV WKH YHU\ DQWLWKHVLV RI PDUULDJH DQG IDPLO\´ WKLV DVVHUWLRQ DQG DV WKH GLVFXVVLRQ ZLOO LOOXVWUDWH WKH VKRUW GXUDWLRQ RI 0HFXUH Y 9DQ %XUHQ 7RZQVKLS ) 6XSS G (' 0LFK WKH FRKDELWDWLRQ LV QRW D IDFWRU LQ RXU DQDO\VLV
FLWDWLRQ RPLWWHG 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
6XSUHPH &RXUW UHMHFWHG D FRQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDOOHQJH WR 0DUFXP¶V H[WUDPDULWDO UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV QRW HQWLWOHG WR *HRUJLD¶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¶VVXPPDU\MXGJPHQWGHFLVLRQ &RXUWUHIXVHGWRH[WHQGDIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWWRKRPRVH[XDOV GHQRYR6HH:DWNLQVY%DWWOH&UHHN)G WK WR HQJDJH LQ FRQVHQVXDO VRGRP\ ,G DW 7KH GLVWULFW &LU 6XPPDU\MXGJPHQWVKRXOGEHJUDQWHGZKHQ³WKH FRXUWEHORZDQGDSSDUHQWO\WKHPDMRULW\FLWH%RZHUVEHFDXVH SOHDGLQJV GHSRVLWLRQV DQVZHUV WR LQWHUURJDWRULHV DQG WKHUHLQWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWZRXOGQRWWDNHDQH[SDQVLYHYLHZ DGPLVVLRQVRQILOHWRJHWKHUZLWKWKHDIILGDYLWVLIDQ\VKRZ DQGUHMHFWHGDQLQYLWDWLRQWRGLVFRYHUQHZIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWV WKDWWKHUHLVQRJHQXLQHLVVXHDVWRDQ\PDWHULDOIDFWDQGWKDW LPEHGGHGLQWKHGXHSURFHVVFODXVHLHWKHULJKWWRHQJDJH WKHPRYLQJSDUW\LVHQWLWOHGWRDMXGJPHQWDVDPDWWHURIODZ´ LQKRPRVH[XDOVRGRP\7KHDUJXPHQWWKHUHIRUHJRHVWKDWWKLV )HG 5 &LY 3 F 7KXV VXPPDry judgment is &RXUWVKRXOGQRWH[SDQGWKHULJKWRILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQWR appropriate if a party who has the burden of proof at trial fails LQFOXGH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW PLJKW EH FRQVLGHUHG DGXOWHURXV to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an +RZHYHU GHVSLWH %RZHUV ³WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV QRW element that is essential to that party's case. See Celotex GHILQLWLYHO\DQVZHUHGWKHGLIILFXOWTXHVWLRQZKHWKHUDQGWR Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). ZKDWH[WHQWWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQSURKLELWVDVWDWH RUVWDWHDFWRU
IURP UHJXODWLQJ WKH SULYDWH FRQVHQVXDO VH[XDO EHKDYLRU RI Discussion DGXOWV´+XJKHVY&LW\RI12OPVWHG )G WK &LU )XUWKHU LQ OLJKW RI WKH NLQG RI UHDVRQLQJ Marcum maintains that his exclusive, romantic and sexually VXJJHVWHGE\%ULJJVLWFDQQRWEHVDLGWKDWDUHODWLRQVKLSWKDW intimate relationship and cohabitation with a married woman PLJKW EH FRQVLGHUHG DGXOWHURXV LSVR IDFWR VWULSV WKH is entitled to protection under the constitutional right of UHODWLRQVKLSRIDOOFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ%RZHUVGRHVQRW association and, as a result, the Sheriff could not legally fire UHTXLUHWKDWZHJLYHGLVSRVLWLYHZHLJKWHQWLUHO\WRRQHIDFWRU him for such behavior. He argues that the district court WKHDGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDQGLJQRUHDOORWKHU erroneously dismissed his claim by categorically denying IDFWRUVWKH&RXUWVHWIRUWKLQ5REHUWVDQGH[SRXQGHGXSRQLQ constitutional protection based on its labeling his relationship 5RWDU\ GHFLGHGDIWHU%RZHUV LQDVVHVVLQJZKHWKHUDFHUWDLQ "adulterous," offending the spirit of the Constitution and UHODWLRQVKLSVKRXOGEHDIIRUGHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ ignoring the factors and analysis set forth by the United States Supreme Court.
:KDWHYHUWKHSHUFHLYHGUHDFKRI%RZHUVDPDMRULW\RIWKH &RXUW VLQFH %RZHUV KDV QRW DGRSWHG WKH SRVLWLRQ WKDW QR The two seminal cases defining the right of intimate PDWWHU KRZ XQUHDVRQDEOH DQ\ JRYHUQPHQW DFWLRQ WDNHQ association that this court must look to for guidance are DJDLQVWFRQVHQWLQJDGXOWVZKRVHUHODWLRQVKLSVPD\LQYROYH Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), and RWKHUZLVHSHUPLVVLEO\VWDWHSURVFULEHGVH[XDODFWLYLW\VXFKDV Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, KRPRVH[XDO VRGRP\ ZLOO VXUYLYH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO VFUXWLQ\ 481 U.S. 537 (1987). Roberts explained that the EHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKHDGXOW¶VVH[XDODFWLYLW\DORQH6HH constitutionally protected "freedom of association" has been HJ 5RPHU Y (YDQV 86 KROGLQJ recognized in the case law in two distinct forms. First, the 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
Supreme Court has identified "a right to associate for the GLYLGHGRYHUZKHWKHUH[WUDPDULWDOVH[XDODFWLYLW\LQFOXGLQJ purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First DGXOWHURXVDFWLYLW\LVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHGLQDZD\WKDW Amendment--speech, assembly, petition for the redress of IRUELGVSXEOLFHPSOR\HUVIURPGLVFLSOLQLQJHPSOR\HHVZKR grievances, and the exercise of religion." Roberts, 468 U.S. HQJDJHLQVXFKDFWLYLW\%ULJJV86DW :KLWH- at 618. Next, the Court has recognized a certain right of GLVVHQWLQJ -XVWLFH :KLWH ZRXOG KDYH JUDQWHG FHUWLRUDUL intimate association reasoning that "choices to enter into and LQDVPXFK DV WKH FDVH ZRXOG KDYH JLYHQ WKH &RXUW DQ maintain certain intimate human relationships must be RSSRUWXQLW\WRFRQVLGHU³WKHFRQWRXUVRIWKHULJKWRISULYDF\ secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the DIIRUGHGLQGLYLGXDOVIRUVH[XDOPDWWHUV´,G role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this 7KH PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ FRUUHFWO\ QRWHV WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH respect, freedom of association receives protection as a &RXUWKDVQRWUHVWULFWHGWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWRILQWLPDWH fundamental element of personal liberty." Id. at 617-18. The DVVRFLDWLRQ WR UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IDPLO\ PHPEHUV 6HH personal relationship at issue in this case does not involve 5RWDU\ 86 DW )XUWKHU WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV expressive activity. Rather, this case involves an alleged UHMHFWHGWKHDUJXPHQWWKDWDOWKRXJKSXEOLFHPSOR\PHQWPD\ intrusion by the state into Marcum’s intimate human EHGHQLHGDOWRJHWKHUVXFKHPSOR\PHQWPD\EHVXEMHFWWRDQ\ relationship in violation of his right of intimate association. FRQGLWLRQ DW DOO QR PDWWHU KRZ XQUHDVRQDEOH 6HH HJ 3LFNHULQJY%GRI(GXFRI7RZQVKLS+LJK6FKRRO'LVW The Court in Roberts expressed that in order to secure 86 FLWLQJ.H\LVKLDQY%RDUGRI5HJHQWV individual liberty, it "must afford the formation and 86 )RUDVWDWHWRGLVPLVVDQLQGLYLGXDO preservation of certain kinds of highly personal relationships VROHO\EHFDXVHWKHUHODWLRQVKLSLQZKLFKKHRUVKHLVLQYROYHG a substantial measure of sanctuary from unjustified PLJKWEHODEHOHGDGXOWHURXVPD\EHXQUHDVRQDEOHXQGHUVRPH interference by the State." Id. at 618 (citations omitted). FLUFXPVWDQFHV )RU LQVWDQFH XQGHU WKH PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ¶V Without precisely defining every consideration underlying DSSURDFK HYHQ D ORQJWHUP UHODWLRQVKLS LQ ZKLFK WKH this type of constitutional protection, the Court noted that SDUWLFLSDQWVKDYHUHVLGHGWRJHWKHUUDLVHGFKLOGUHQDQGOLYHG "certain kinds of personal bonds have played a critical role in HVVHQWLDOO\DVDPDUULHGFRXSOHFRXOGEHEH\RQGWKHSDOHRI the culture and traditions of the Nation by cultivating and FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQZKHUHRQHRUERWKLQGLYLGXDOVIRU transmitting shared ideals and beliefs." Id. at 618-19. ZKDWHYHU UHDVRQ KDV QHYHU OHJDOO\ WHUPLQDWHG D SULRU (citations omitted). The personal affiliations that exemplify PDUULDJHDQGKHQFHFRXOGQRWUHPDUU\7KLVZRXOGKROGWUXH the considerations that warrant constitutional protection and XQGHU WKH PDMRULW\¶V UHDVRQLQJ GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW VXFK D suggest limitations on the relationships that might be entitled UHODWLRQVKLS PLJKW FHUWDLQO\ ³SUHVXSSRVH GHHS DWWDFKPHQWV to constitutional shelter "are those that attend the creation and DQGFRPPLWPHQWV´LQZKLFKWKHLQGLYLGXDOV³VKDUH>@QRWRQO\ sustenance of a family," which "are distinguished by such DVSHFLDOFRPPXQLW\RIWKRXJKWVH[SHULHQFHVDQGEHOLHIVEXW DOVRGLVWLQFWLYHO\SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRI>WKHLUOLYHV@´5REHUWV attributes as relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in 86DW decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship." Id. 619-20 7KHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQUHOLHVKHDYLO\RQ%RZHUVY+DUGZLFN (citations omitted). 86 DQGQRWHVWKDWWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWKDV UHMHFWHG WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW ³DQ\ NLQG RI SULYDWH VH[XDO To determine the limits of state authority over an FRQGXFW EHWZHHQ FRQVHQWLQJ DGXOWV LV FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ individual’s freedom to enter into a particular association, it LQVXODWHGIURPVWDWHSURVFULSWLRQ´,GDW ,Q%RZHUVWKH is the task of the court to engage in "a careful assessment of 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
SHUVRQDORUSULYDWHWRZDUUDQWFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQFRXUWV where that relationship’s objective characteristics locate it on PD\FRQVLGHUVL]HSXUSRVHVHOHFWLYLW\DQGZKHWKHURWKHUVDUH a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of H[FOXGHGIURPWKHFULWLFDODVSHFWVRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLS6HH%G personal attachments," taking into consideration factors that RI'LUVRI5RWDU\,QW¶OY5RWDU\&OXERI'XDUWH86 may include "size, purpose, policies, selectivity, congeniality, VHHDOVR5REHUWV86DW QRWLQJ and other characteristics" that may be pertinent. Id. at 620. WKDWFRXUWVPD\DOVRFRQVLGHU³RWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWLQD Rotary added that while the exact boundaries of this type of SDUWLFXODUFDVHPD\EHSHUWLQHQW´ constitutional protection were not marked, it is not restricted to relationships among family members. See Rotary, 481 7KHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQKROGVWKDWWKH³DGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRI U.S. at 545. The Court emphasized that protection is afforded WKHUHODWLRQVKLS>LQWKLVFDVH@GRHVQRWSRUWUD\DUHODWLRQVKLS to those relationships that "presuppose deep attachments and RI WKH PRVW LQWLPDWH YDULHW\ DIIRUGHG SURWHFWLRQ XQGHU WKH commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with &RQVWLWXWLRQ´ %URDGO\ FRQVWUXHG WKLV KROGLQJ DSSHDUV WR whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, LQGLFDWH WKDW UHJDUGOHVV RI DQ\ RWKHU IDFWRUV WKDW PLJKW EH experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects FRQVLGHUHG LQ DVVHVVLQJ ZKHWKHU D UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH of one’s life." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation DIIRUGHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQWKHRQO\UHOHYDQWIDFWRULQ omitted). GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU D UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQLQDFDVHOLNHWKHSUHVHQWLVZKHWKHU Marcum argues that the district court failed to assess the WKH UHODWLRQVKLS FDQ EH GHHPHG DGXOWHURXV , EHOLHYH WKDW attributes and qualities of the relationship between him and ZKLOHUHOHYDQWLQPDNLQJVXFKDGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKHDGXOWHURXV Abbott. Instead, he contends that the court ignored the factors QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DORQH VKRXOG QRW EH GLVSRVLWLYH and analysis set forth in Roberts and Rotary, and focused ,QGHHGSUHFHGHQWIURPWKLVFLUFXLWGHPRQVWUDWHVDVPXFK exclusively on whether the relationship attends the creation or sustenance of a family. Marcum correctly points out that ,Q%ULJJVY10XVNHJRQ3ROLFH'HS¶W)6XSS based on the Court’s decision in Rotary, constitutional :' 0LFK DII¶G PHP )G WK &LU protection is not limited to family relationships. See id. The FHUWGHQLHG86 WKHGLVWULFWFRXUW district court, however, noted that relationships afforded this DIWHUDEHQFKWULDOIRXQGWKDWGHIHQGDQWVYLRODWHGDSODLQWLII¶V type of constitutional protection are not restricted to those FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWWRSULYDF\E\WHUPLQDWLQJDQGUHIXVLQJWR UHLQVWDWHKLPDVDSROLFHRIILFHUIRUKLVFRKDELWDWLRQZLWKD between family members. Moreover, the district court ZRPDQZKLOHWKH\ZHUHERWKPDUULHGWRRWKHUSHRSOH acknowledged the appropriate analysis set forth in Roberts )6XSSDW7KHSODLQWLIIFRQWHQGHGWKDWWKHGHIHQGDQWV¶ and Rotary and examined the objective characteristics of the DFWVKDGLQWUXGHGRQKLVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\JXDUDQWHHGULJKWVRI relationship between Marcum and Abbott. While there are SULYDF\DQGDVVRFLDWLRQDQGWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDJUHHG,GDW relationships other than those between family members that may be afforded constitutional protection, it does not follow that any relationship that could be objectively qualified as $OWKRXJK %ULJJV KDV QR SUHFHGHQWLDO YDOXH EHFDXVH WKLV "intimate" should be protected. &RXUWLVVXHGQRSXEOLVKHGRSLQLRQZHQHYHUWKHOHVVDIILUPHG WKH MXGJPHQW RI WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW ZKLFK IRXQG WKDW WKH Looking at the factors enunciated in Roberts, 468 U.S. at DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS LQYROYHG LQ WKDW FDVH ZDUUDQWHG 620, and Rotary, 481 U.S. at 545-46, Marcum contends that FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ,QWKHGLVVHQWIURPWKHGHQLDORI the court failed to recognize that the association was relatively FHUWLRUDULLQ%ULJJV-XVWLFH:KLWHQRWHGWKDWWKHFLUFXLWVZHUH small - just the two of them; highly selective in the decision to begin and maintain the affiliation; and others were secluded 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
from the relationship. Based on these objective characteristics BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB and the fact that he and Abbott shared thoughts, experiences and personal aspects of their lives, Marcum argues that the &21&855(1&( relationship is constitutionally protected under the right of BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB intimate association. Although these factors may weigh in favor of a finding of a protected relationship, we find that the &/$<&LUFXLW-XGJHFRQFXUULQJ,GRQRWDJUHHZLWKWKH adulterous nature of the relationship does not portray a PDMRULW\RSLQLRQ¶VKROGLQJWKDWEHFDXVHDUHODWLRQVKLSFDQEH relationship of the most intimate variety afforded protection ODEHOHG³DGXOWHURXV´LWVKRXOGQHYHUUHFHLYHFRQVWLWXWLRQDO under the Constitution. SURWHFWLRQ EXWEHFDXVH,EHOLHYHWKDW3ODLQWLIIIDLOVWRVKRZ WKDWKLVUHODWLRQVKLSFRQVWLWXWHVWKHNLQGRIUHODWLRQVKLSZKLFK 0DUFXPFODLPVWKDWWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWHUUHGLQILQGLQJWKDW WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV KHUHWRIRUH DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO WKH DGXOWHURXV QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ TXHVWLRQ SURWHFWLRQ,FRQFXULQWKHMXGJPHQW DXWRPDWLFDOO\EDUUHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ:HGLVDJUHH 7KHDGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRI0DUFXP¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWK$EERWW $VWKHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQSRLQWVRXWWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWKDV LVDIDFWWKDWPXVWEHFRQVLGHUHGLQGHWHUPLQLQJZKHUHRQWKH KHOG WKDW WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ SURWHFWV WKH ULJKW WR IRUP DQG VSHFWUXPWKLVUHODWLRQVKLSOLHV6HH5REHUWV86DW PDLQWDLQFHUWDLQLQWLPDWHSHUVRQDOUHODWLRQVKLSV6HH5REHUWV H[SODLQLQJ WKDW REMHFWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO Y 8QLWHG 6WDWHV -D\FHHV 86
UHODWLRQVKLS PXVW EH FRQVLGHUHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHUH WKDW H[SODLQLQJWKDWLQFHUWDLQLQVWDQFHVWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQSURWHFWV UHODWLRQVKLSOLHVRQD³VSHFWUXPIURPWKHPRVWLQWLPDWHWRWKH WKHULJKWWRIRUPDQGPDLQWDLQFHUWDLQLQWLPDWHUHODWLRQVKLSV PRVW DWWHQXDWHG RI SHUVRQDO DWWDFKPHQWV´ 7KH 6XSUHPH DJDLQVWXQGXHDQGXQMXVWLILHGVWDWHLQWUXVLRQ ,QDWWHPSWLQJ &RXUWKDVVHWIRUWKIDFWRUVZKLFKPD\EHXVHGLQGHWHUPLQLQJ WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKH W\SHV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV ZDUUDQWLQJ ZKHWKHUDSDUWLFXODUUHODWLRQVKLSLVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ WKH &RXUW KDV ORRNHG WR WKRVH 7KHVH IDFWRUV LQFOXGH ³VL]H SXUSRVH SROLFLHV VHOHFWLYLW\ ³SHUVRQDO DIILOLDWLRQV´ WKDW DWWHQG WR WKH ³FUHDWLRQ DQG FRQJHQLDOLW\DQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWLQDSDUWLFXODUFDVH VXVWHQDQFH RI D IDPLO\´ VXFK DV FKLOGELUWK UDLVLQJ DQG PD\ EH SHUWLQHQW´ ,G 7KH DGXOWHURXV QDWXUH RI WKH HGXFDWLQJFKLOGUHQDQGOLYLQJZLWKUHODWLYHV,GDW 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 0DUFXP DQG $EERWW LV DQ REMHFWLYH &RXUW H[SODLQHG WKDW ³E\ WKHLU QDWXUH´ WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ³LQYROYH GHHS DWWDFKPHQWV DQG FRPPLWPHQWV WR WKH QHFHVVDULO\IHZRWKHULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKZKRPRQHVKDUHVQRW RQO\ D VSHFLDO FRPPXQLW\ RI WKRXJKWV H[SHULHQFHV DQG 0DUFXP FLWHV D 6L[WK &LUFXLW FDVH &RUULJDQ Y &LW\ RI 1HZD\JR EHOLHIVEXWDOVRGLVWLQFWLYHO\SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRIRQH¶VOLIH´ )G WK &LU IRU WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW SHUVRQDO IULHQGVKLSV ,GDW6XFKUHODWLRQVKLSVDUHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHG PD\ EH SURWHFWHG DV D IRUP RI IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKHUHIRUH KLV H[FOXVLYH URPDQWLF UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK $EERWW LV VXUHO\ SURWHFWHG 7KH FRXUW EHFDXVHRIWKH³UHDOL]DWLRQ´WKDWLQGLYLGXDOVGUDZHPRWLRQDO LQ &RUULJDQ LQ LWV LQLWLDO GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKH HQULFKPHQWIURPWKRVHZLWKZKRPWKH\VKDUHFORVHWLHV,G WZR W\SHV RI FODLPV QRWHG WKDW RQH W\SH RI DVVRFLDWLRQ LV ³UHODWHG WR DW &RQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQWKHUHIRUH³VDIHJXDUGVWKH SULYDF\ DQG SURWHFWHG E\ WKH GXH SURFHVV FODXVH ± IRU H[DPSOH WKH DELOLW\ WR GHILQH RQH¶V LGHQWLW\ WKDW LV FHQWUDO WR DQ\ IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ RQ ZKLFK ZH EDVH IDPLO\ OLIH DQG SHUVRQDO FRQFHSW RI OLEHUW\´ ,G 7KHUH LV D EURDG VSHFWUXP RI IULHQGVKLS´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
fellow officer is insufficient to render the court’s reasoning FKDUDFWHULVWLFWKDWLVSHUWLQHQWWRWKLVFDVHDQGZHILQGWKDWWKH inapplicable here; the Mercure court did not base its decision GLVWULFWFRXUWFRUUHFWO\FRQVLGHUHGLWLQGHWHUPLQLQJZKHWKHU on the identity of the parties. Futhermore, as discussed WKHUHODWLRQVKLSZDVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHG previously, the fact that adultery is legal in Kentucky does not automatically create constitutional protection, nor does it 1H[W0DUFXPFRQWHQGVWKDWWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW¶VUHOLDQFHRQ change the fact that historically adultery has been considered %RZHUVY+DUGZLFN86 ZKHQDQDO\]LQJ a crime in many states, including Kentucky. We agree with WKHIDFWWKDWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSZDVDGXOWHURXVLVPLVSODFHGIRU the Mercure court’s conclusion that "adulterous conduct is the %RZHUVZDVFRQFHUQHGSULPDULO\ZLWKWKHULJKWRISULYDF\DQG very antithesis of marriage and family," and that such WKH DVVHUWHG IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW WR HQJDJH LQ KRPRVH[XDO behavior cannot be compared to any of the "fundamental VRGRP\ )XUWKHUPRUH 0DUFXP SRLQWV RXW WKDW 5RWDU\ matters of personal choice that lie at the core of traditional GHFLGHGDIWHU%RZHUVGLGQRWFLWHRUUHVWDWHDQ\SURSRVLWLRQV notions of individual liberty." Id. at 823 (citation omitted). IRXQG LQ %RZHUV ZKHQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH ULJKW RI LQWLPDWH DVVRFLDWLRQ
Marcum has failed to suggest how his decision to enter into an intimate, sexual relationship and cohabitation with a 7KH&RXUWLQ5RWDU\ZDVQRWH[DPLQLQJDQLQWLPDWHVH[XDO married woman is a fundamental right deeply rooted in the UHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWZRFRQVHQWLQJDGXOWVDQGUHOLDQFHRQ Nation’s history and tradition or implicit in the concept of %RZHUVIRUJXLGDQFHZDVXQQHFHVVDU\%RZHUVLVH[WUHPHO\ ordered liberty. Though perhaps unfair, his dismissal did not LQVWUXFWLYHLQWKHSUHVHQWFDVHDQGWKHIDFWWKDWWKHFRXUWZDV infringe his right of association as guaranteed by the First and DGGUHVVLQJDQRWKHUIXQGDPHQWDOOLEHUW\LQWHUHVWJURXQGHGLQ Fourteenth Amendments. WKHULJKWRISULYDF\GRHVQRWSUHYHQWWKLVFRXUWIURPUHO\LQJ RQ %RZHUV IRU JXLGDQFH ZKHQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU DQ $)),50(' DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WZR FRQVHQWLQJ DGXOWV LV FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SURWHFWHG DV D IXQGDPHQWDO HOHPHQW RI SHUVRQDOOLEHUW\SURWHFWHGXQGHUWKHIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQ 6HH )OHLVKHU Y 6LJQDO +LOO )G WK &LU H[SODLQLQJWKDW³>D@VDSSOLHGWKXVIDULQ6XSUHPH&RXUW FDVHODZWKHIUHHGRPRILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQLVFRH[WHQVLYH ZLWK WKH ULJKW RI SULYDF\ ERWK WKH IUHHGRP RI LQWLPDWH DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKH ULJKW RI SULYDF\ GHVFULEH WKDW ERG\ RI ULJKWV WKDW SURWHFW LQWLPDWH KXPDQ UHODWLRQVKLSV IURP XQZDUUDQWHGLQWUXVLRQRULQWHUIHUHQFHE\WKHVWDWH´ In Bowers, the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that "any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription." Bowers, 478 U.S. at 191. Rather, the Court characterized the fundamental liberties recognized in prior decisions qualifying for heightened judicial scrutiny as those that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed" and "deeply 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." Id. at 191-92 continue to outlaw extramarital acts.The fact that adultery (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court is no longer illegal in the Commonwealth of Kentucky does held that neither of these formulations extended a not establish that such conduct is a fundamental liberty fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of protected by the Constitution. %DVHG RQ WKH KLVWRULFDO consensual sodomy, noting that sodomy was a criminal WUHDWPHQWRIDGXOWHU\DULJKWWRHQJDJHLQDQLQWLPDWHVH[XDO offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the UHODWLRQVKLSZLWKWKHVSRXVHRIDQRWKHUFDQQRWEHVDLGWREH thirteen states when they ratified the Bill of Rights. See id. at HLWKHUGHHSO\URRWHGLQWKLV1DWLRQ¶VKLVWRU\DQGWUDGLWLRQRU 192. Accordingly, it held that a right to engage in this LPSOLFLWLQWKHFRQFHSWRIRUGHUHGOLEHUW\7KXVIROORZLQJWKH conduct was not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and 6XSUHPH&RXUW¶VGHFLVLRQLQ%RZHUVZHGHFOLQHWRDFFRUG tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. See id. 0DUFXP¶V DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO at 194. Furthermore, the Court expressed its reluctance to SURWHFWLRQDIIRUGHGWKRVHLQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQVZKLFKUHFHLYH "take a more expansive view of our authority to discover new SURWHFWLRQDVDIXQGDPHQWDOHOHPHQWRISHUVRQDOOLEHUW\ fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause," observing that "[t]he Court is most vulnerable and comes Relying on both the language and spirit of Bowers, the nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made court in Mercure v. Van Buren Township, 81 F. Supp. 2d 814 constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the (E.D. Mich. 2000), held that the constitutional protections of language or design of the Constitution." Id. the First and Fourteenth Amendments, embodied in the right of intimate association, did not extend to a police officer’s Bowers is factually analogous to this case in that it adulterous relationship with the wife of a fellow officer; thus, evaluates a consensual sexual relationship between two adults there was no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his and it provides an expansion on the analysis set forth in discharge. See Mercure, 81 F. Supp. 2d at 825. The district Roberts and Rotary for cases dealing with private, sexual court found Mercure to be "both informative and persuasive relationships. Much like sodomy, proscriptions against albeit not binding precedent." Marcum argues that in adultery have ancient roots. Adultery, though not a crime at Mercure the officer’s relationship with the wife of a fellow English common law, was punishable under the canon law, officer distinguishes it from the present case. Additionally, which was administered by the ecclesiastical courts of he seeks to distinguish Mercure based on the fact that the England. See United States v. Clapox, 35 F. 575, 578 (D. Or. court discussed that Michigan law makes adultery a felony, 1888); 2 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 210 whereas it is no longer illegal in Kentucky. (15th ed. 1994). The common law, brought to this country by the American colonists, did not punish adultery unless the As discussed by the district court, Marcum’s efforts to conduct was "open and notorious" as to amount to a "public distinguish Mercure do not succeed. The fact that the nuisance," as defined by the English canon law. See Cole v. plaintiff’s relationship in Mercure was with the wife of a State, 94 A. 913, 914 (Md. 1915); Torcia, supra. The Puritans, however, made adultery with a married woman a capital offense and from this Puritan legacy sprung state laws 6HH HJ $UL] 5HY 6WDW $ )OD 6WDW *$
criminalizing adultery. See Jeremy D. Weinstein, Note, &RGH $QQ .DQ 6WDW $QQ 0LFK &RPS /DZV 1& *HQ 6WDW 5, *HQ /DZV 6& &RGH Adultery, Law, and the State: A History, 38 Hastings L.J. $QQ :LV 6WDW $QQ 195, 225-26 (1986). Even today, there are jurisdictions which .\ 5HY 6WDW PDNLQJ DGXOWHU\ D FULPLQDO RIIHQVH LQ WKH &RPPRQZHDOWK ZDV UHSHDOHG LQ