The Tenth Circuit concluded that because local Utah prosecutors had a policy of not pursuing polygamy per se in the absence of additional associated crimes (e.g., welfare fraud or marriage of underage persons), the Browns had no credible fear of future prosecution and thus lacked standing.

[2] However, experts claim that the family history as a unit for 16 years, including children from all four wives, could permit prosecutors to characterize the non-marriage unions as common-law marriages.

[1] Sullivan has said that the family was concerned about the legal repercussions of the series, but had discussed the matter thoroughly and decided that the positive effect their show could have on the public perception of polygamy was worth the risks.

[8] As a result of the series and legal scrutiny that came with it, Meri lost her job in the mental health industry shortly after Sister Wives debuted, even though her employer knew about the polygamist marriage before the show aired.

[15] However, the civil suit filed by the Browns remained active after U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups refused to dismiss it, saying that this "strategic attempt to use the mootness doctrine to evade review in this case draws into question the sincerity of [the Utah County Attorney's] contention that prosecution of plaintiffs for violating this statute is unlikely to recur.

[18][19][20] Unlawful cohabitation, where prosecutors did not need to prove that a marriage ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), had been a major tool used to prosecute polygamy in Utah since the 1882 Edmunds Act.

The plaintiffs were represented by George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, acting pro bono.

[22] On April 11, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit unanimously ordered the district court to dismiss the case on standing grounds.