Family sues polygamous towns for religious discrimination, wins $5.2 million award

A jury ruled in favor of the Cooke family, awarding them $5.2 million in a civil rights trial against the polygamous towns of Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah. The family argued that they faced religious discrimination for not being members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). The Cookes moved to the area, known as Short Creek, in 2008 but were denied access to utilities for years.

The case, which has been ongoing in Phoenix’s U.S. District Court, centered on the Cookes’ struggle to obtain water, sewer, and electric hookups. They were forced to live in a 35-foot travel trailer while their unfinished home, owned by the United Effort Plan—a trust controlled by the state of Utah—remained unlivable. The family and their attorneys claimed the cities withheld utilities because they were not FLDS members, and church leaders orchestrated the discrimination to drive away outsiders.

During the trial, attorneys presented evidence suggesting the FLDS, led by now-imprisoned prophet Warren Jeffs, influenced local leaders to deny the Cookes basic services. Letters between Jeffs and city officials, along with testimony from a former FLDS security officer, were used to show a coordinated effort to expel the family. The jury’s decision marked a significant moment in the legal battle over religious freedom and discrimination.

The Cookes’ attorney, William Walker, called the verdict a “total victory,” noting the jury awarded more than the family had requested. He emphasized the importance of the ruling in sending a message to the communities involved. The case highlights the complex interplay between religious practices and civil rights, raising questions about the limits of religious autonomy and the protection of individual freedoms.

The outcome has sparked discussions about the role of local governments in enforcing civil rights protections against religious groups. While the FLDS community has expressed disappointment, the ruling underscores the legal system’s role in addressing discrimination, even within religious contexts. The case remains a pivotal example of how legal challenges can intersect with religious and social issues.

Source: Read the original report