Marcum v. McWhorter ( 2002 )

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
1R²-HQQLIHU%&RIIPDQ'LVWULFW-XGJH
$UJXHG0D\
'HFLGHGDQG)LOHG6HSWHPEHU
%HIRUH0$57,1&KLHI&LUFXLW-XGJH6,/(5DQG&/$<
&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
VHUYHGDVDFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDQWKHZDVUHSULPDQGHGIRU 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
VHHLGDWFRQWHQGLQJWKDWVWDWHDPHQGPHQWGHSULYLQJ
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¶VVRGRP\VWDWXWH,QWKDWFDVHWKH6XSUHPH&RXUW FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH FRXUW JUDQWHG
H[SODLQHG WKDW DOWKRXJK QRW H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH WH[W RI WKH VXPPDU\ MXGJPHQW DJDLQVW 0DUFXP EHFDXVH KH IDLOHG WR
&RQVWLWXWLRQWKH&RXUWKDVUHFRJQL]HGFHUWDLQSULYDF\ULJKWV SURYHDQLQIULQJHPHQWRIDFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHGULJKW
XQGHUWKHGXHSURFHVVFODXVHRIWKH)RXUWHHQWK$PHQGPHQW
,GDW)RFXVLQJSULPDULO\RQWKHVH[XDODFWDWLVVXHDQG 6WDQGDUGRI5HYLHZ
JLYLQJ OLWWOH RU QR DWWHQWLRQ WR DQ\ RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKH
UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV RI WKH VH[XDO DFW WKH :HUHYLHZWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW¶VVXPPDU\MXGJPHQWGHFLVLRQ
&RXUWUHIXVHGWRH[WHQGDIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWWRKRPRVH[XDOV GHQRYR6HH:DWNLQVY%DWWOH&UHHN)GWK
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&RQVWLWXWLRQSURKLELWVDVWDWHRUVWDWHDFWRU
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,
VHHDOVR5REHUWV86DWQRWLQJ 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. SURWHFWLRQEXWEHFDXVH,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,GDW7KH
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´ ,G DW  7KH FRXUW KRZHYHU GLG QRW DQDO\]H RU
UHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQWKRVHWKDW DUHPRVWOLNHO\HQWLWOHGWR
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQIURPVWDWHLQWHUIHUHQFHVXFKDVFORVH
GLVFXVV KRZ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK SHUVRQDO DIILOLDWLRQV IDOO LQWR WKH FDWHJRU\
RI SURWHFWHG LQWLPDWH UHODWLRQVKLSV DV VXFK DQ DQDO\VLV ZDV LUUHOHYDQW WR
WKH IDFWV RI WKH FDVH ZKLFK FRQFHUQHG WKH ULJKW WR DVVRFLDWH IRU SXUSRVHV IDPLO\UHODWLRQVKLSVDQGWKRVHWKDWDUHQRW,GDW7R
RI HQJDJLQJ LQ H[SUHVVLYH DFWLYLW\ SURWHFWHG E\ WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW ,Q GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU D SDUWLFXODU DVVRFLDWLRQ LV VXIILFLHQWO\
VKRUW &RUULJDQ LV QRW IDFWXDOO\ RU OHJDOO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKLV FDVH
 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R 1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 
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 814constitutional 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