02a0324p.06

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
Y
-$0(6 0&:+257(5DV
LQWHULP6KHULIIRI3XODVNL
&RXQW\.HQWXFN\
'HIHQGDQW$SSHOOHH
;!

1
1R
$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

-- 1 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
*,/%(57 5LFKPRQG .HQWXFN\ IRU $SSHOODQW 'DYLG
:KDOLQ/$1'580 6+286(/RXLVYLOOH.HQWXFN\IRU
$SSHOOHH
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
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
ZKHWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
SURWHFWLRQ ZHLJK DJDLQVW ILQGLQJ 3ODLQWLII¶V UHODWLRQVKLS
ZDUUDQWVVXFKSURWHFWLRQLQWKHLQVWDQWFDVH,FRQFXULQWKH
MXGJPHQWRIWKH&RXUW

-- 2 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
7KLV LV QRW WR H[SUHVV DQ RSLQLRQ RQ WKH XOWLPDWH UHDVRQ IRU
3ODLQWLII¶V GLVFKDUJH DV WKLV PD\ EH GLVSXWHG 7KLV LV VLPSO\ WR SRLQW RXW
WKDW 3ODLQWLII FDQQRW FODLP RQ WKLV UHFRUG WKDW KLV UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV D SXUHO\
SULYDWH DIIDLU WKDW GLG QRW DIIHFW KLV GXWLHV
PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ , EHOLHYH WKDW WKH VKRUW GXUDWLRQ RI WKH
UHODWLRQVKLS IDFWRUV LQWR ZKHWKHU LW VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ,GDW
3ODLQWLII¶VUHODWLRQVKLSDOVRGLIIHUVPDUNHGO\IURPWKHW\SH
RIUHODWLRQVKLSDWLVVXHLQ%ULJJVZKHUHWKLV&RXUWVXPPDULO\
DIILUPHG WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW¶V ILQGLQJ WKDW WKH SODLQWLII¶V
GLVFKDUJH YLRODWHG KLV ULJKWV WR SULYDF\ DQG LQWLPDWH
DVVRFLDWLRQ 3ODLQWLII FDQQRW GHQ\ RQ WKLV UHFRUG WKDW KLV
UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK $EERWW EHFDPH D SXEOLF PDWWHU DQG ZDV
LQWHUWZLQHGZLWKDQGDIIHFWHGKLVMRESHUIRUPDQFH,QGHHG
ZHKDYHQRWHGWKDW³>W@KHVLJQLILFDQFHRI%ULJJVOLHVLQWKH
IDFWWKDWWKHRIILFHULQWKDWFDVHZDVGLVPLVVHGVROHO\EHFDXVH
RIKLVOLYLQJVWDWXVZLWKRXWDQ\UHIHUHQFHDVWRKRZWKDWVWDWXV
FRXOGKDYHDIIHFWHGKLVSHUIRUPDQFHDVDQRIILFHU´+XJKHV
)GDW3ODLQWLIIPHW$EERWWRQWKHMREZKHUHVKH
VHUYHGDVDFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDQWKHZDVUHSULPDQGHGIRU
WKHWLPHKHVSHQWZLWKKHUZKLOHRQGXW\DQGRQDWOHDVWRQH
RFFDVLRQVKRUWO\EHIRUHKLVGLVFKDUJHKDGDSXEOLFDOWHUFDWLRQ
ZLWKKLVDGXOWGDXJKWHURYHUWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDWKLVZRUNSODFH
&I %ULJJV )6XSS DW QRWLQJ WKDW SODLQWLII KDG
SHUIRUPHG KLV GXWLHV VDWLVIDFWRULO\ XS XQWLO WKH WLPH RI KLV
VXVSHQVLRQ DQG WKDW SODLQWLII KLPVHOI EURXJKW KLV OLYLQJ
DUUDQJHPHQWVWRWKHDWWHQWLRQRIKLVVXSHULRU
7KH6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVKHOGWKDWWKHUHDUHOLPLWVRQWKH
W\SHV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW PLJKW ZDUUDQW FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
SURWHFWLRQ 5REHUWV 86 DW $OWKRXJK VXFK
SURWHFWLRQLVH[WHQGHGEH\RQGIDPLOLDOUHODWLRQVKLSVWKXVIDU
WKH &RXUW KDV QHYHUWKHOHVV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV
PRVWOLNHO\WRZDUUDQWVXFKSURWHFWLRQDUHWKRVHWKDWLQYROYH
³GHHSDWWDFKPHQWVDQGFRPPLWPHQWV´LQZKLFKRQHVKDUHV
DPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKRVH³SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRIRQH¶VOLIH´,G
DW%HFDXVH,ILQGWKDWWKHREMHFWLYHIDFWRUVWKDWWKH
6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVLQVWUXFWHGFRXUWVWRHPSOR\LQGHWHUPLQLQJ
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
Abbott were just "good friends" whose respective spouses and
families were social acquaintances whose association was
marked by family outings and get-togethers.
As an informant, Abbott frequently met with Marcum to
discuss cases. At some point, at least by June 1996, their
relationship had progressed sufficiently to attract the attention
of Chief Deputy Swartz, who counseled Marcum about
Abbott’s visits to his office and the courthouse. The
relationship had become the subject of rumors in and around
both the sheriff’s department and the courthouse.
Additionally, Sheriff Catron received numerous complaints
concerning Marcum’s association with Abbott from
employees within his department, as well as persons working
at the courthouse and various citizens within the community.
The relationship reached a turning point in September
1997. While on duty on September 4, Marcum informed
Abbott that her husband was making passes at her best friend.
Abbott asked Marcum to go with her to confront the woman,
which he agreed to do. After receiving confirmation of
Marcum’s information, Abbott moved out of the marital
residence and into her brother’s cottage where she remained
with her children until September 9 or 10. During her stay at
the cottage, Abbott discussed with Marcum her inability to
rent a place of her own and the possibility of their renting a
place together, sharing expenses. There had been no
discussion of cohabitation between Marcum and Abbott prior
to Abbott’s leaving her husband.
The two then rented a townhouse and began living together
on September 9 or 10. Marcum testified that they were not
contemplating sharing a life together, or anything of that
nature when they assumed their cohabitation. Abbott testified
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
that he and Abbott did not engage in sexual relations until
after they moved in together. Abbott’s testimony, however,
places the date of their first sexual relations on September 5,

-- 3 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
0DUFXP DUJXHV WKDW WKH XOWLPDWH GXUDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV QRW
UHOHYDQW WR WKH GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SURWHFWHG DW WKH WLPH KH ZDV GLVPLVVHG :H DJUHH ZLWK
WKLV DVVHUWLRQ DQG DV WKH GLVFXVVLRQ ZLOO LOOXVWUDWH WKH VKRUW GXUDWLRQ RI
WKH FRKDELWDWLRQ LV QRW D IDFWRU LQ RXU DQDO\VLV
the day after she left her husband and prior to her cohabitation
with Marcum. Noting this inconsistency, but viewing the
facts in the light most favorable to Marcum, the district court
found that Marcum and Abbott were romantically involved to
some degree when they moved in together.
Regardless of their relationship prior to their cohabitation,
it is undisputed that Marcum and Abbott were romantically
involved during the time they lived together and certainly at
the time of Marcum’s dismissal. After learning of this living
arrangement, Sheriff Catron told Marcum that either he or
Abbott would have to move out. Marcum was discharged on
September 19, 1997, upon his perceived failure to comply
with Catron’s directive. The living arrangement between
Marcum and Abbott lasted approximately one month.2Q
2FWREHU$EERWWOHIWWRUHFRQFLOHZLWKKHUKXVEDQG7KH
PDLQUHDVRQVKHFLWHGIRUOHDYLQJZDVWKDWKHUROGHVWGDXJKWHU
GLG QRW JHW DORQJ ZLWK 0DUFXP 6KH DOVR WHVWLILHG WKDW
0DUFXP³ZDVJHWWLQJWRRVHULRXVDQG>VKH@MXVWZDVQ¶WUHDG\
IRUWKHUHODWLRQVKLS´
0DUFXP ILOHG D 86& † DFWLRQ IRU ZURQJIXO
WHUPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW 6KHULII &DWURQ LQ KLV LQGLYLGXDO DQG
RIILFLDO FDSDFLW\ DOOHJLQJ WKDW KH ZDV ILUHG EHFDXVH RI KLV
UHODWLRQVKLSDQGFRKDELWDWLRQZLWK$EERWWLQYLRODWLRQRIKLV
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWV7KHGLVWULFWFRXUWGLVPLVVHG0DUFXP¶V
)LUVW$PHQGPHQWFODLPVDQGKLVIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQFODLP
DJDLQVW&DWURQLQKLVLQGLYLGXDOFDSDFLW\RQWKHJURXQGVRI
TXDOLILHGLPPXQLW\7KHRQO\FODLPVZKLFKVXUYLYHGZHUH
0DUFXP¶VIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQFODLPDJDLQVW&DWURQLQKLV
RIILFLDOFDSDFLW\DQGKLVSHQGHQWVWDWHODZFODLPV7KHFRXUW
UHVHUYHG MXGJPHQW UHJDUGLQJ WKH IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ
FODLP$IWHUH[WHQGLQJ0DUFXPWLPHLQZKLFKWRGHYHORSWKH
IDFWVDERXWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWFRQFOXGHGWKDW
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH DGXOWHURXV QDWXUH RI D UHODWLRQVKLS LV D IDFWRU WKDW
VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH
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\
DIIRUGHG SURWHFWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ LQFOXGH WKRVH SHUWDLQLQJ WR PDUULDJH DQG
IDPLO\ ,G DW $V DW OHDVW RQH FRXUW LQ WKLV FLUFXLW KDV QRWHG
³DGXOWHURXV FRQGXFW LV WKH YHU\ DQWLWKHVLV RI PDUULDJH DQG IDPLO\´
0HFXUH Y 9DQ %XUHQ 7RZQVKLS ) 6XSS G (' 0LFK
FLWDWLRQ RPLWWHG
YLRODWLYHRIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDVWDWHFRQVWLWXWLRQDODPHQGPHQW
WKDWDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVUHSHDOHGH[LVWLQJODZWKDWEDQQHG
GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW KRPRVH[XDOV DQG QRWLQJ ZLWKRXW
UHIHUHQFH WR %RZHUV WKDW UHDFK RI DPHQGPHQW FRXOG
SRWHQWLDOO\VXEMHFWWKLVJURXSWRDUELWUDU\GLVFULPLQDWLRQ %XW
VHHLGDW FRQWHQGLQJWKDWVWDWHDPHQGPHQWGHSULYLQJ
KRPRVH[XDOVRIULJKWVZDVUDWLRQDOLQDVPXFKDV&RXUWKDG
KHOG LQ %RZHUV WKDW IURP WKH LQFHSWLRQ RI WKH FRXQWU\
KRPRVH[XDOFRQGXFWZDVDFULPH 6FDOLD-GLVVHQWLQJ
,QDQ\HYHQW,DJUHHZLWKWKHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQWKDW3ODLQWLII
IDLOVWRVKRZWKDWDQDVVHVVPHQWRIWKHREMHFWLYHIDFWRUVRIKLV
UHODWLRQVKLSSODFHVLWDWWKHHQGRIWKHVSHFWUXPZLWKWKRVH
UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV IRXQG ZDUUDQW
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQXQGHUWKH)LUVW$PHQGPHQW¶VULJKW
RILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQ$OWKRXJK3ODLQWLII¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWK
5HQD$EERWWLQYROYHGRQO\WZRLQGLYLGXDOVDQGZDVVH[XDOLQ
QDWXUH WKH UHFRUG GRHV QRW VXSSRUW WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKLV
UHODWLRQVKLSZDVHQWHUHGLQWRDQGPDLQWDLQHGWRIRUPGHHS
SHUVRQDOFRPPLWPHQWVDQGDWWDFKPHQWV5REHUWV86DW
5DWKHULQDVVHVVLQJWKHUHODWLRQVKLS¶VSXUSRVHQRW
RQO\ZHUHERWK3ODLQWLIIDQG$EERWWPDUULHGWRRWKHUSHRSOH
EXW $EERWW WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH SXUSRVH RI WKHLU PRYLQJ LQ
WRJHWKHU ZDV PHUHO\ LQWHQGHG WR EH D ³URRPPDWH W\SH RI
DUUDQJHPHQW´)XUWKHU3ODLQWLIIFDQQRWFODLPWKDWRWKHUVWUXO\
ZHUH H[FOXGHG IURP WKH FULWLFDO DVSHFWV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS
LQDVPXFKDV$EERWWOHIWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDQGWKHUHVLGHQFHVKH
VKDUHGZLWK3ODLQWLIIZLWKLQDSSUR[LPDWHO\RQHPRQWKVRWKDW
VKH FRXOG UHFRQFLOH ZLWK KHU RZQ KXVEDQG 8QOLNH WKH

-- 4 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
6XSUHPH &RXUW UHMHFWHG D FRQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDOOHQJH WR
*HRUJLD¶VVRGRP\VWDWXWH,QWKDWFDVHWKH6XSUHPH&RXUW
H[SODLQHG WKDW DOWKRXJK QRW H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH WH[W RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQWKH&RXUWKDVUHFRJQL]HGFHUWDLQSULYDF\ULJKWV
XQGHUWKHGXHSURFHVVFODXVHRIWKH)RXUWHHQWK$PHQGPHQW
,GDW)RFXVLQJSULPDULO\RQWKHVH[XDODFWDWLVVXHDQG
JLYLQJ OLWWOH RU QR DWWHQWLRQ WR DQ\ RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKH
UHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVRIWKHVH[XDODFWWKH
&RXUWUHIXVHGWRH[WHQGDIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWWRKRPRVH[XDOV
WR HQJDJH LQ FRQVHQVXDO VRGRP\ ,G DW 7KH GLVWULFW
FRXUWEHORZDQGDSSDUHQWO\WKHPDMRULW\FLWH%RZHUVEHFDXVH
WKHUHLQWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWZRXOGQRWWDNHDQH[SDQVLYHYLHZ
DQGUHMHFWHGDQLQYLWDWLRQWRGLVFRYHUQHZIXQGDPHQWDOULJKWV
LPEHGGHGLQWKHGXHSURFHVVFODXVHLHWKHULJKWWRHQJDJH
LQKRPRVH[XDOVRGRP\7KHDUJXPHQWWKHUHIRUHJRHVWKDWWKLV
&RXUWVKRXOGQRWH[SDQGWKHULJKWRILQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQWR
LQFOXGH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW PLJKW EH FRQVLGHUHG DGXOWHURXV
+RZHYHU GHVSLWH %RZHUV ³WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV QRW
GHILQLWLYHO\DQVZHUHGWKHGLIILFXOWTXHVWLRQZKHWKHUDQGWR
ZKDWH[WHQWWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQSURKLELWVDVWDWH RUVWDWHDFWRU
IURP UHJXODWLQJ WKH SULYDWH FRQVHQVXDO VH[XDO EHKDYLRU RI
DGXOWV´+XJKHVY&LW\RI12OPVWHG)G
WK &LU )XUWKHU LQ OLJKW RI WKH NLQG RI UHDVRQLQJ
VXJJHVWHGE\%ULJJVLWFDQQRWEHVDLGWKDWDUHODWLRQVKLSWKDW
PLJKW EH FRQVLGHUHG DGXOWHURXV LSVR IDFWR VWULSV WKH
UHODWLRQVKLSRIDOOFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ%RZHUVGRHVQRW
UHTXLUHWKDWZHJLYHGLVSRVLWLYHZHLJKWHQWLUHO\WRRQHIDFWRU
WKHDGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSDQGLJQRUHDOORWKHU
IDFWRUVWKH&RXUWVHWIRUWKLQ5REHUWVDQGH[SRXQGHGXSRQLQ
5RWDU\ GHFLGHGDIWHU%RZHUV LQDVVHVVLQJZKHWKHUDFHUWDLQ
UHODWLRQVKLSVKRXOGEHDIIRUGHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ
:KDWHYHUWKHSHUFHLYHGUHDFKRI%RZHUVDPDMRULW\RIWKH
&RXUW VLQFH %RZHUV KDV QRW DGRSWHG WKH SRVLWLRQ WKDW QR
PDWWHU KRZ XQUHDVRQDEOH DQ\ JRYHUQPHQW DFWLRQ WDNHQ
DJDLQVWFRQVHQWLQJDGXOWVZKRVHUHODWLRQVKLSVPD\LQYROYH
RWKHUZLVHSHUPLVVLEO\VWDWHSURVFULEHGVH[XDODFWLYLW\VXFKDV
KRPRVH[XDO VRGRP\ ZLOO VXUYLYH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO VFUXWLQ\
EHFDXVHRIWKHQDWXUHRIWKHDGXOW¶VVH[XDODFWLYLW\DORQH6HH
HJ 5RPHU Y (YDQV 86 KROGLQJ
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
0DUFXP¶V H[WUDPDULWDO UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV QRW HQWLWOHG WR
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH FRXUW JUDQWHG
VXPPDU\ MXGJPHQW DJDLQVW 0DUFXP EHFDXVH KH IDLOHG WR
SURYHDQLQIULQJHPHQWRIDFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHGULJKW
6WDQGDUGRI5HYLHZ
:HUHYLHZWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW¶VVXPPDU\MXGJPHQWGHFLVLRQ
GHQRYR6HH:DWNLQVY%DWWOH&UHHN)G WK
&LU 6XPPDU\MXGJPHQWVKRXOGEHJUDQWHGZKHQ³WKH
SOHDGLQJV GHSRVLWLRQV DQVZHUV WR LQWHUURJDWRULHV DQG
DGPLVVLRQVRQILOHWRJHWKHUZLWKWKHDIILGDYLWVLIDQ\VKRZ
WKDWWKHUHLVQRJHQXLQHLVVXHDVWRDQ\PDWHULDOIDFWDQGWKDW
WKHPRYLQJSDUW\LVHQWLWOHGWRDMXGJPHQWDVDPDWWHURIODZ´
)HG 5 &LY 3 F 7KXV VXPPDry judgment is
appropriate if a party who has the burden of proof at trial fails
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element that is essential to that party's case. See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Discussion
Marcum maintains that his exclusive, romantic and sexually
intimate relationship and cohabitation with a married woman
is entitled to protection under the constitutional right of
association and, as a result, the Sheriff could not legally fire
him for such behavior. He argues that the district court
erroneously dismissed his claim by categorically denying
constitutional protection based on its labeling his relationship
"adulterous," offending the spirit of the Constitution and
ignoring the factors and analysis set forth by the United States
Supreme Court.
The two seminal cases defining the right of intimate
association that this court must look to for guidance are
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), and
Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte,
481 U.S. 537 (1987). Roberts explained that the
constitutionally protected "freedom of association" has been
recognized in the case law in two distinct forms. First, the

-- 5 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
Supreme Court has identified "a right to associate for the
purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First
Amendment--speech, assembly, petition for the redress of
grievances, and the exercise of religion." Roberts, 468 U.S.
at 618. Next, the Court has recognized a certain right of
intimate association reasoning that "choices to enter into and
maintain certain intimate human relationships must be
secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the
role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual
freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this
respect, freedom of association receives protection as a
fundamental element of personal liberty." Id. at 617-18. The
personal relationship at issue in this case does not involve
expressive activity. Rather, this case involves an alleged
intrusion by the state into Marcum’s intimate human
relationship in violation of his right of intimate association.
The Court in Roberts expressed that in order to secure
individual liberty, it "must afford the formation and
preservation of certain kinds of highly personal relationships
a substantial measure of sanctuary from unjustified
interference by the State." Id. at 618 (citations omitted).
Without precisely defining every consideration underlying
this type of constitutional protection, the Court noted that
"certain kinds of personal bonds have played a critical role in
the culture and traditions of the Nation by cultivating and
transmitting shared ideals and beliefs." Id. at 618-19.
(citations omitted). The personal affiliations that exemplify
the considerations that warrant constitutional protection and
suggest limitations on the relationships that might be entitled
to constitutional shelter "are those that attend the creation and
sustenance of a family," which "are distinguished by such
attributes as relative smallness, a high degree of selectivity in
decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion
from others in critical aspects of the relationship." Id. 619-20
(citations omitted).
To determine the limits of state authority over an
individual’s freedom to enter into a particular association, it
is the task of the court to engage in "a careful assessment of
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
GLYLGHGRYHUZKHWKHUH[WUDPDULWDOVH[XDODFWLYLW\LQFOXGLQJ
DGXOWHURXVDFWLYLW\LVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHGLQDZD\WKDW
IRUELGVSXEOLFHPSOR\HUVIURPGLVFLSOLQLQJHPSOR\HHVZKR
HQJDJHLQVXFKDFWLYLW\%ULJJV86DW :KLWH-
GLVVHQWLQJ -XVWLFH :KLWH ZRXOG KDYH JUDQWHG FHUWLRUDUL
LQDVPXFK DV WKH FDVH ZRXOG KDYH JLYHQ WKH &RXUW DQ
RSSRUWXQLW\WRFRQVLGHU³WKHFRQWRXUVRIWKHULJKWRISULYDF\
DIIRUGHGLQGLYLGXDOVIRUVH[XDOPDWWHUV´,G
7KH PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ FRUUHFWO\ QRWHV WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH
&RXUWKDVQRWUHVWULFWHGWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWRILQWLPDWH
DVVRFLDWLRQ WR UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ IDPLO\ PHPEHUV 6HH
5RWDU\ 86 DW )XUWKHU WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV
UHMHFWHGWKHDUJXPHQWWKDWDOWKRXJKSXEOLFHPSOR\PHQWPD\
EHGHQLHGDOWRJHWKHUVXFKHPSOR\PHQWPD\EHVXEMHFWWRDQ\
FRQGLWLRQ DW DOO QR PDWWHU KRZ XQUHDVRQDEOH 6HH HJ
3LFNHULQJY%GRI(GXFRI7RZQVKLS+LJK6FKRRO'LVW
86 FLWLQJ.H\LVKLDQY%RDUGRI5HJHQWV
86 )RUDVWDWHWRGLVPLVVDQLQGLYLGXDO
VROHO\EHFDXVHWKHUHODWLRQVKLSLQZKLFKKHRUVKHLVLQYROYHG
PLJKWEHODEHOHGDGXOWHURXVPD\EHXQUHDVRQDEOHXQGHUVRPH
FLUFXPVWDQFHV )RU LQVWDQFH XQGHU WKH PDMRULW\ RSLQLRQ¶V
DSSURDFK HYHQ D ORQJWHUP UHODWLRQVKLS LQ ZKLFK WKH
SDUWLFLSDQWVKDYHUHVLGHGWRJHWKHUUDLVHGFKLOGUHQDQGOLYHG
HVVHQWLDOO\DVDPDUULHGFRXSOHFRXOGEHEH\RQGWKHSDOHRI
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQZKHUHRQHRUERWKLQGLYLGXDOVIRU
ZKDWHYHU UHDVRQ KDV QHYHU OHJDOO\ WHUPLQDWHG D SULRU
PDUULDJHDQGKHQFHFRXOGQRWUHPDUU\7KLVZRXOGKROGWUXH
XQGHU WKH PDMRULW\¶V UHDVRQLQJ GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW VXFK D
UHODWLRQVKLS PLJKW FHUWDLQO\ ³SUHVXSSRVH GHHS DWWDFKPHQWV
DQGFRPPLWPHQWV´LQZKLFKWKHLQGLYLGXDOV³VKDUH>@QRWRQO\
DVSHFLDOFRPPXQLW\RIWKRXJKWVH[SHULHQFHVDQGEHOLHIVEXW
DOVRGLVWLQFWLYHO\SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRI>WKHLUOLYHV@´5REHUWV
86DW
7KHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQUHOLHVKHDYLO\RQ%RZHUVY+DUGZLFN
86 DQGQRWHVWKDWWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWKDV
UHMHFWHG WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW ³DQ\ NLQG RI SULYDWH VH[XDO
FRQGXFW EHWZHHQ FRQVHQWLQJ DGXOWV LV FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\
LQVXODWHGIURPVWDWHSURVFULSWLRQ´,GDW,Q%RZHUVWKH

-- 6 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
SHUVRQDORUSULYDWHWRZDUUDQWFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQFRXUWV
PD\FRQVLGHUVL]HSXUSRVHVHOHFWLYLW\DQGZKHWKHURWKHUVDUH
H[FOXGHGIURPWKHFULWLFDODVSHFWVRIWKHUHODWLRQVKLS6HH%G
RI'LUVRI5RWDU\,QW¶OY5RWDU\&OXERI'XDUWH86
VHHDOVR5REHUWV86DW QRWLQJ
WKDWFRXUWVPD\DOVRFRQVLGHU³RWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWLQD
SDUWLFXODUFDVHPD\EHSHUWLQHQW´
7KHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQKROGVWKDWWKH³DGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRI
WKHUHODWLRQVKLS>LQWKLVFDVH@GRHVQRWSRUWUD\DUHODWLRQVKLS
RI WKH PRVW LQWLPDWH YDULHW\ DIIRUGHG SURWHFWLRQ XQGHU WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ´ %URDGO\ FRQVWUXHG WKLV KROGLQJ DSSHDUV WR
LQGLFDWH WKDW UHJDUGOHVV RI DQ\ RWKHU IDFWRUV WKDW PLJKW EH
FRQVLGHUHG LQ DVVHVVLQJ ZKHWKHU D UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH
DIIRUGHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQWKHRQO\UHOHYDQWIDFWRULQ
GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU D UHODWLRQVKLS VKRXOG EH DIIRUGHG
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQLQDFDVHOLNHWKHSUHVHQWLVZKHWKHU
WKH UHODWLRQVKLS FDQ EH GHHPHG DGXOWHURXV , EHOLHYH WKDW
ZKLOHUHOHYDQWLQPDNLQJVXFKDGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKHDGXOWHURXV
QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DORQH VKRXOG QRW EH GLVSRVLWLYH
,QGHHGSUHFHGHQWIURPWKLVFLUFXLWGHPRQVWUDWHVDVPXFK
,Q%ULJJVY10XVNHJRQ3ROLFH'HS¶W)6XSS
:' 0LFK DII¶G PHP )G WK &LU
FHUWGHQLHG86 WKHGLVWULFWFRXUW
DIWHUDEHQFKWULDOIRXQGWKDWGHIHQGDQWVYLRODWHGDSODLQWLII¶V
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWWRSULYDF\E\WHUPLQDWLQJDQGUHIXVLQJWR
UHLQVWDWHKLPDVDSROLFHRIILFHUIRUKLVFRKDELWDWLRQZLWKD
ZRPDQZKLOHWKH\ZHUHERWKPDUULHGWRRWKHUSHRSOH
)6XSSDW7KHSODLQWLIIFRQWHQGHGWKDWWKHGHIHQGDQWV¶
DFWVKDGLQWUXGHGRQKLVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\JXDUDQWHHGULJKWVRI
SULYDF\DQGDVVRFLDWLRQDQGWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWDJUHHG,GDW

$OWKRXJK %ULJJV KDV QR SUHFHGHQWLDO YDOXH EHFDXVH WKLV
&RXUWLVVXHGQRSXEOLVKHGRSLQLRQZHQHYHUWKHOHVVDIILUPHG
WKH MXGJPHQW RI WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW ZKLFK IRXQG WKDW WKH
DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS LQYROYHG LQ WKDW FDVH ZDUUDQWHG
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ,QWKHGLVVHQWIURPWKHGHQLDORI
FHUWLRUDULLQ%ULJJV-XVWLFH:KLWHQRWHGWKDWWKHFLUFXLWVZHUH
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
where that relationship’s objective characteristics locate it on
a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of
personal attachments," taking into consideration factors that
may include "size, purpose, policies, selectivity, congeniality,
and other characteristics" that may be pertinent. Id. at 620.
Rotary added that while the exact boundaries of this type of
constitutional protection were not marked, it is not restricted
to relationships among family members. See Rotary, 481
U.S. at 545. The Court emphasized that protection is afforded
to those relationships that "presuppose deep attachments and
commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with
whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts,
experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects
of one’s life." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Marcum argues that the district court failed to assess the
attributes and qualities of the relationship between him and
Abbott. Instead, he contends that the court ignored the factors
and analysis set forth in Roberts and Rotary, and focused
exclusively on whether the relationship attends the creation or
sustenance of a family. Marcum correctly points out that
based on the Court’s decision in Rotary, constitutional
protection is not limited to family relationships. See id. The
district court, however, noted that relationships afforded this
type of constitutional protection are not restricted to those
between family members. Moreover, the district court
acknowledged the appropriate analysis set forth in Roberts
and Rotary and examined the objective characteristics of the
relationship between Marcum and Abbott. While there are
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
"intimate" should be protected.
Looking at the factors enunciated in Roberts, 468 U.S. at
620, and Rotary, 481 U.S. at 545-46, Marcum contends that
the court failed to recognize that the association was relatively
small - just the two of them; highly selective in the decision
to begin and maintain the affiliation; and others were secluded

-- 7 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
0DUFXP FLWHV D 6L[WK &LUFXLW FDVH &RUULJDQ Y &LW\ RI 1HZD\JR
)G WK &LU IRU WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW SHUVRQDO IULHQGVKLSV
PD\ EH SURWHFWHG DV D IRUP RI IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKHUHIRUH KLV
H[FOXVLYH URPDQWLF UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK $EERWW LV VXUHO\ SURWHFWHG 7KH FRXUW
LQ &RUULJDQ LQ LWV LQLWLDO GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKH
WZR W\SHV RI FODLPV QRWHG WKDW RQH W\SH RI DVVRFLDWLRQ LV ³UHODWHG WR
SULYDF\ DQG SURWHFWHG E\ WKH GXH SURFHVV FODXVH ± IRU H[DPSOH WKH
IUHHGRP RI DVVRFLDWLRQ RQ ZKLFK ZH EDVH IDPLO\ OLIH DQG SHUVRQDO
IULHQGVKLS´ ,G DW 7KH FRXUW KRZHYHU GLG QRW DQDO\]H RU
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
RI HQJDJLQJ LQ H[SUHVVLYH DFWLYLW\ SURWHFWHG E\ WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW ,Q
VKRUW &RUULJDQ LV QRW IDFWXDOO\ RU OHJDOO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKLV FDVH
from the relationship. Based on these objective characteristics
and the fact that he and Abbott shared thoughts, experiences
and personal aspects of their lives, Marcum argues that the
relationship is constitutionally protected under the right of
intimate association. Although these factors may weigh in
favor of a finding of a protected relationship, we find that the
adulterous nature of the relationship does not portray a
relationship of the most intimate variety afforded protection
under the Constitution.
0DUFXPFODLPVWKDWWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWHUUHGLQILQGLQJWKDW
WKH DGXOWHURXV QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ TXHVWLRQ
DXWRPDWLFDOO\EDUUHGFRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQ:HGLVDJUHH
7KHDGXOWHURXVQDWXUHRI0DUFXP¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWK$EERWW
LVDIDFWWKDWPXVWEHFRQVLGHUHGLQGHWHUPLQLQJZKHUHRQWKH
VSHFWUXPWKLVUHODWLRQVKLSOLHV6HH5REHUWV86DW
H[SODLQLQJ WKDW REMHFWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO
UHODWLRQVKLS PXVW EH FRQVLGHUHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHUH WKDW
UHODWLRQVKLSOLHVRQD³VSHFWUXPIURPWKHPRVWLQWLPDWHWRWKH
PRVW DWWHQXDWHG RI SHUVRQDO DWWDFKPHQWV´ 7KH 6XSUHPH
&RXUWKDVVHWIRUWKIDFWRUVZKLFKPD\EHXVHGLQGHWHUPLQLQJ
ZKHWKHUDSDUWLFXODUUHODWLRQVKLSLVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHG
7KHVH IDFWRUV LQFOXGH ³VL]H SXUSRVH SROLFLHV VHOHFWLYLW\
FRQJHQLDOLW\DQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWLQDSDUWLFXODUFDVH
PD\ EH SHUWLQHQW´ ,G 7KH DGXOWHURXV QDWXUH RI WKH
UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 0DUFXP DQG $EERWW LV DQ REMHFWLYH
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&21&855(1&(
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&/$<&LUFXLW-XGJHFRQFXUULQJ,GRQRWDJUHHZLWKWKH
PDMRULW\RSLQLRQ¶VKROGLQJWKDWEHFDXVHDUHODWLRQVKLSFDQEH
ODEHOHG³DGXOWHURXV´LWVKRXOGQHYHUUHFHLYHFRQVWLWXWLRQDO
SURWHFWLRQEXWEHFDXVH,EHOLHYHWKDW3ODLQWLIIIDLOVWRVKRZ
WKDWKLVUHODWLRQVKLSFRQVWLWXWHVWKHNLQGRIUHODWLRQVKLSZKLFK
WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV KHUHWRIRUH DIIRUGHG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
SURWHFWLRQ,FRQFXULQWKHMXGJPHQW
$VWKHPDMRULW\RSLQLRQSRLQWVRXWWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWKDV
KHOG WKDW WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ SURWHFWV WKH ULJKW WR IRUP DQG
PDLQWDLQFHUWDLQLQWLPDWHSHUVRQDOUHODWLRQVKLSV6HH5REHUWV
Y 8QLWHG 6WDWHV -D\FHHV 86
H[SODLQLQJWKDWLQFHUWDLQLQVWDQFHVWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQSURWHFWV
WKHULJKWWRIRUPDQGPDLQWDLQFHUWDLQLQWLPDWHUHODWLRQVKLSV
DJDLQVWXQGXHDQGXQMXVWLILHGVWDWHLQWUXVLRQ ,QDWWHPSWLQJ
WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKH W\SHV RI UHODWLRQVKLSV ZDUUDQWLQJ
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ WKH &RXUW KDV ORRNHG WR WKRVH
³SHUVRQDO DIILOLDWLRQV´ WKDW DWWHQG WR WKH ³FUHDWLRQ DQG
VXVWHQDQFH RI D IDPLO\´ VXFK DV FKLOGELUWK UDLVLQJ DQG
HGXFDWLQJFKLOGUHQDQGOLYLQJZLWKUHODWLYHV,GDW7KH
&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
EHOLHIVEXWDOVRGLVWLQFWLYHO\SHUVRQDODVSHFWVRIRQH¶VOLIH´
,GDW6XFKUHODWLRQVKLSVDUHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHG
EHFDXVHRIWKH³UHDOL]DWLRQ´WKDWLQGLYLGXDOVGUDZHPRWLRQDO
HQULFKPHQWIURPWKRVHZLWKZKRPWKH\VKDUHFORVHWLHV,G
DW&RQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQWKHUHIRUH³VDIHJXDUGVWKH
DELOLW\ WR GHILQH RQH¶V LGHQWLW\ WKDW LV FHQWUDO WR DQ\
FRQFHSW RI OLEHUW\´ ,G 7KHUH LV D EURDG VSHFWUXP RI
UHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQWKRVHWKDWDUHPRVWOLNHO\HQWLWOHGWR
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOSURWHFWLRQIURPVWDWHLQWHUIHUHQFHVXFKDVFORVH
IDPLO\UHODWLRQVKLSVDQGWKRVHWKDWDUHQRW,GDW7R
GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU D SDUWLFXODU DVVRFLDWLRQ LV VXIILFLHQWO\

-- 8 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
fellow officer is insufficient to render the court’s reasoning
inapplicable here; the Mercure court did not base its decision
on the identity of the parties. Futhermore, as discussed
previously, the fact that adultery is legal in Kentucky does not
automatically create constitutional protection, nor does it
change the fact that historically adultery has been considered
a crime in many states, including Kentucky. We agree with
the Mercure court’s conclusion that "adulterous conduct is the
very antithesis of marriage and family," and that such
behavior cannot be compared to any of the "fundamental
matters of personal choice that lie at the core of traditional
notions of individual liberty." Id. at 823 (citation omitted).
Marcum has failed to suggest how his decision to enter into
an intimate, sexual relationship and cohabitation with a
married woman is a fundamental right deeply rooted in the
Nation’s history and tradition or implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty. Though perhaps unfair, his dismissal did not
infringe his right of association as guaranteed by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.
$)),50('
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
FKDUDFWHULVWLFWKDWLVSHUWLQHQWWRWKLVFDVHDQGZHILQGWKDWWKH
GLVWULFWFRXUWFRUUHFWO\FRQVLGHUHGLWLQGHWHUPLQLQJZKHWKHU
WKHUHODWLRQVKLSZDVFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\SURWHFWHG
1H[W0DUFXPFRQWHQGVWKDWWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW¶VUHOLDQFHRQ
%RZHUVY+DUGZLFN86 ZKHQDQDO\]LQJ
WKHIDFWWKDWWKHUHODWLRQVKLSZDVDGXOWHURXVLVPLVSODFHGIRU
%RZHUVZDVFRQFHUQHGSULPDULO\ZLWKWKHULJKWRISULYDF\DQG
WKH DVVHUWHG IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW WR HQJDJH LQ KRPRVH[XDO
VRGRP\ )XUWKHUPRUH 0DUFXP SRLQWV RXW WKDW 5RWDU\
GHFLGHGDIWHU%RZHUVGLGQRWFLWHRUUHVWDWHDQ\SURSRVLWLRQV
IRXQG LQ %RZHUV ZKHQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH ULJKW RI LQWLPDWH
DVVRFLDWLRQ
7KH&RXUWLQ5RWDU\ZDVQRWH[DPLQLQJDQLQWLPDWHVH[XDO
UHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWZRFRQVHQWLQJDGXOWVDQGUHOLDQFHRQ
%RZHUVIRUJXLGDQFHZDVXQQHFHVVDU\%RZHUVLVH[WUHPHO\
LQVWUXFWLYHLQWKHSUHVHQWFDVHDQGWKHIDFWWKDWWKHFRXUWZDV
DGGUHVVLQJDQRWKHUIXQGDPHQWDOOLEHUW\LQWHUHVWJURXQGHGLQ
WKHULJKWRISULYDF\GRHVQRWSUHYHQWWKLVFRXUWIURPUHO\LQJ
RQ %RZHUV IRU JXLGDQFH ZKHQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU DQ
DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WZR FRQVHQWLQJ DGXOWV LV
FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SURWHFWHG DV D IXQGDPHQWDO HOHPHQW RI
SHUVRQDOOLEHUW\SURWHFWHGXQGHUWKHIUHHGRPRIDVVRFLDWLRQ
6HH)OHLVKHUY6LJQDO+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

-- 9 of 10 --

0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU 1R
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." Id. at 191-92
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court
held that neither of these formulations extended a
fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of
consensual sodomy, noting that sodomy was a criminal
offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the
thirteen states when they ratified the Bill of Rights. See id. at
192. Accordingly, it held that a right to engage in this
conduct was not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and
tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. See id.
at 194. Furthermore, the Court expressed its reluctance to
"take a more expansive view of our authority to discover new
fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause,"
observing that "[t]he Court is most vulnerable and comes
nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made
constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the
language or design of the Constitution." Id.
Bowers is factually analogous to this case in that it
evaluates a consensual sexual relationship between two adults
and it provides an expansion on the analysis set forth in
Roberts and Rotary for cases dealing with private, sexual
relationships. Much like sodomy, proscriptions against
adultery have ancient roots. Adultery, though not a crime at
English common law, was punishable under the canon law,
which was administered by the ecclesiastical courts of
England. See United States v. Clapox, 35 F. 575, 578 (D. Or.
1888); 2 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 210
(15th ed. 1994). The common law, brought to this country by
the American colonists, did not punish adultery unless the
conduct was "open and notorious" as to amount to a "public
nuisance," as defined by the English canon law. See Cole v.
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
criminalizing adultery. See Jeremy D. Weinstein, Note,
Adultery, Law, and the State: A History, 38 Hastings L.J.
195, 225-26 (1986). Even today, there are jurisdictions which
1R 0DUFXPY0F:KRUWHU
6HH HJ $UL] 5HY 6WDW † $ )OD 6WDW † *$
&RGH $QQ † .DQ 6WDW $QQ † 0LFK &RPS /DZV
† 1& *HQ 6WDW † 5, *HQ /DZV † 6& &RGH
$QQ †† :LV 6WDW $QQ †
.\ 5HY 6WDW† PDNLQJ DGXOWHU\ D FULPLQDO RIIHQVH LQ WKH
&RPPRQZHDOWK ZDV UHSHDOHG LQ
continue to outlaw extramarital acts.The fact that adultery
is no longer illegal in the Commonwealth of Kentucky does
not establish that such conduct is a fundamental liberty
protected by the Constitution. %DVHG RQ WKH KLVWRULFDO
WUHDWPHQWRIDGXOWHU\DULJKWWRHQJDJHLQDQLQWLPDWHVH[XDO
UHODWLRQVKLSZLWKWKHVSRXVHRIDQRWKHUFDQQRWEHVDLGWREH
HLWKHUGHHSO\URRWHGLQWKLV1DWLRQ¶VKLVWRU\DQGWUDGLWLRQRU
LPSOLFLWLQWKHFRQFHSWRIRUGHUHGOLEHUW\7KXVIROORZLQJWKH
6XSUHPH&RXUW¶VGHFLVLRQLQ%RZHUVZHGHFOLQHWRDFFRUG
0DUFXP¶V DGXOWHURXV UHODWLRQVKLS WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
SURWHFWLRQDIIRUGHGWKRVHLQWLPDWHDVVRFLDWLRQVZKLFKUHFHLYH
SURWHFWLRQDVDIXQGDPHQWDOHOHPHQWRISHUVRQDOOLEHUW\
Relying on both the language and spirit of Bowers, the
court in Mercure v. Van Buren Township, 81 F. Supp. 2d 814
(E.D. Mich. 2000), held that the constitutional protections of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, embodied in the right
of intimate association, did not extend to a police officer’s
adulterous relationship with the wife of a fellow officer; thus,
there was no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his
discharge. See Mercure, 81 F. Supp. 2d at 825. The district
court found Mercure to be "both informative and persuasive
albeit not binding precedent." Marcum argues that in
Mercure the officer’s relationship with the wife of a fellow
officer distinguishes it from the present case. Additionally,
he seeks to distinguish Mercure based on the fact that the
court discussed that Michigan law makes adultery a felony,
whereas it is no longer illegal in Kentucky.
As discussed by the district court, Marcum’s efforts to
distinguish Mercure do not succeed. The fact that the
plaintiff’s relationship in Mercure was with the wife of a

-- 10 of 10 --