The State of Utah appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 21, 2016. The State of Utah was represented by Parker Douglas. The plaintiffs were represented by George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, acting pro bono.
On April 11, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit unanimously ordered the district court to dismiss the case on standing grounds. Judge Scott Matheson Jr. wrote for the court, and was joined by Judge Bobby Ray Baldock and Judge Nancy Moritz. The court relied upon the Utah County Attorney's Office policy limiting polygamy prosecutions to those involving alleged child bigamy, fraud, abuse or violence, concluding: "That policy eliminated any credible threat that the Browns will be prosecuted."
Brown V. Buhman on Wikipedia
So basically there is a law against polygamous cohabitation. The law is unconstitutional.
Someone sued, and they succeeded. A judge declared the law unconstitutional.
However, even though the law is there, some other judges say that the person doesn't have any legal standing given that the prosecution doesn't prosecute those laws anyway.
I found this very bizarre.
Unenforced laws hurt the interests of the law abiding. It doesn't make sense.
Why have a law that punishes the law-abiding?