The Satanic Temple: Difference between revisions
→Nonprofit Church Lawsuits: added notice of appeal |
→Nonprofit Church Lawsuits: updating Newsweek suit |
||
(40 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* The [[United_Federation_of_Churches,_LLC|United Federation of Churches, LLC]] does business as "The Satanic Temple", and owns its trademarks. It was originally registered in 2014. Its governing persons are jointly [[Cevin Soling]] and [[Douglas Misicko]], as well as their pseudonyms. It is a for-profit Limited Liability Company. | * The [[United_Federation_of_Churches,_LLC|United Federation of Churches, LLC]] does business as "The Satanic Temple", and owns its trademarks. It was originally registered in 2014. Its governing persons are jointly [[Cevin Soling]] and [[Douglas Misicko]], as well as their pseudonyms. It is a for-profit Limited Liability Company. | ||
* [[The Satanic Temple Inc]] | * [[The Satanic Temple Inc]] achieved Public Charity Status in 2019 as "a church or a convention or association of churches." It was originally registered in 2017 as "The Satanic Temple" before changing to its current name following the change in its federal tax status. Its governing board consists of Misicko, solely. | ||
Both entities have been involved in a number of [[lawsuits]] under the name "The Satanic Temple", including "Inc" taking over some recent appeals of cases begun by "UFC LLC". In addition, TST members have been involved in religious discrimination arguments when representing themselves or when represented by the ACLU. | Both entities have been involved in a number of [[lawsuits]] under the name "The Satanic Temple", including "Inc" taking over some recent appeals of cases begun by "UFC LLC". In addition, TST members have been involved in religious discrimination arguments when representing themselves or when represented by the ACLU. | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
! scope="col" | Notes | ! scope="col" | Notes | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Invocations | ||
|5/03/2023 | |5/03/2023 | ||
|[[The Satanic Temple Inc. v. The City of Chicago]] | |[[The Satanic Temple Inc. v. The City of Chicago]] | ||
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | |US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67320005/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-the-city-of-chicago/?order_by=desc 1:23-cv-02780] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67320005/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-the-city-of-chicago/?order_by=desc 1:23-cv-02780] | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed (failure) | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
|Suit targeting the city of Chicago for failure to invite TST minister Adam Vavrick to give invocation.<ref>[https://www.courthousenews.com/satanic-temple-sues-chicago CourthouseNews.com], "Satanic Temple sues Chicago", May 3, 2023. ''The Satanic Temple sued the city of Chicago in federal court Wednesday over its refusal to allow an ordained minister of the Satanic Temple to deliver an invocation before City Council meetings “without providing any clear explanation of why.” The Establishment Clause requires that the opportunity to deliver a legislative prayer be made available “in a non-discriminatory manner,” according to the lawsuit.''</ref> | |''Suit targeting the city of Chicago for failure to invite TST minister Adam Vavrick to give invocation.<ref>[https://www.courthousenews.com/satanic-temple-sues-chicago CourthouseNews.com], "Satanic Temple sues Chicago", May 3, 2023. ''The Satanic Temple sued the city of Chicago in federal court Wednesday over its refusal to allow an ordained minister of the Satanic Temple to deliver an invocation before City Council meetings “without providing any clear explanation of why.” The Establishment Clause requires that the opportunity to deliver a legislative prayer be made available “in a non-discriminatory manner,” according to the lawsuit.''</ref>Suit voluntarily dismissed with prejudice July 24,2024, after plaintiff Vavrick announced his departure from TST's Ministry program July 8.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67320005/36/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-the-city-of-chicago/ CourtListener.com], ''Civil case dismissed with prejudice - Document #36'', The Satanic Temple Inc. v. The City of Chicago (1:23-cv-02780), Northern District of Illinois.</ref><ref>[https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=726422036 Facebook.com], Facebook update by Adam Vavrick July 8, 2024: "Left Job at Satanic Ministry - Minister of Satan"</ref>'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |Defamation | ||
|11/23/2022 | |11/23/2022 | ||
|[[Satanic Temple, Inc v. Jessica Snow]] | |[[Satanic Temple, Inc v. Jessica Snow]] | ||
|261st Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas) | |261st Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas) | ||
|D-1-GN-22-006797 | |[https://odysseyweb.traviscountytx.gov/app/RegisterOfActions/#/B6CCF0E9F718EE227EE4C550504C3D86C158247E2E208022B462965B12347FD0101CD04A60AF9128B5D056B2BE3B4DE66B4FA22B17CC2BF0D2D0C538F868656117FF6C86F26AEA7998297F12FCC8F50B/anon/portalembed D-1-GN-22-006797] | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |No Movement | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
|Suit targeting "The Satanic Housewife" for TikTok videos.<ref>[https://the.satanic.wiki/images/7/78/D-1-GN-22-006797_-_Plaintiff%27s_Original_Petition_w_Ex_76AC6EC7_-_2022-11-23.pdf TST complaint] filed Nov. 23, 2022</ref><ref>SatanicEurope.Wordpress.com, [https://sataniceurope.wordpress.com/2022/12/04/the-freedom-to-offend/ analysis] and [https://sataniceurope.wordpress.com/2023/02/15/the-satanic-housewife/ interview with defendant].</ref><Ref>[https://queersatanic.com/the-satanic-housewife-videos-and-legal-threat-by-the-satanic-temple/ QueerSatanic.com], ''“The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple''</ref> | |''Suit targeting "The Satanic Housewife" for TikTok videos.<ref>[https://the.satanic.wiki/images/7/78/D-1-GN-22-006797_-_Plaintiff%27s_Original_Petition_w_Ex_76AC6EC7_-_2022-11-23.pdf TST complaint] filed Nov. 23, 2022</ref><ref>SatanicEurope.Wordpress.com, [https://sataniceurope.wordpress.com/2022/12/04/the-freedom-to-offend/ analysis] and [https://sataniceurope.wordpress.com/2023/02/15/the-satanic-housewife/ interview with defendant].</ref><Ref>[https://queersatanic.com/the-satanic-housewife-videos-and-legal-threat-by-the-satanic-temple/ QueerSatanic.com], ''“The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple''</ref> No docket activity since complaint filed in November 2022. | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" |Abortion | ! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;"|Abortion | ||
|9/30/2022 | |9/30/2022 | ||
|[[The Satanic Temple v. Little]] | |[[The Satanic Temple v. Little]] | ||
|US District Court for the District of Idaho | |US District Court for the District of Idaho | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65392308/the-satanic-temple-v-little/ 1:22-cv-00411] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65392308/the-satanic-temple-v-little/ 1:22-cv-00411] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;"| Dismissed (failure) | |||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" | Ongoing | ! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" | Ongoing | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69009053/the-satanic-temple-v-labrador-et-al/ CourtListener.com], ''The Satanic Temple v. Labrador, et al.'' (24-1243), in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; case opened March 1, 2024.</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
| | |''Idaho abortion ban challenge. Complaint largely identical to The Satanic Temple v. Rokita (22-1859) except for references to Idaho instead of Indiana.'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" |Abortion | ! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" |Abortion | ||
| 9/21/2022 | | 9/21/2022 | ||
| [[The Satanic Temple v. | | [[The Satanic Temple v. Rokita]] | ||
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana | | US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364722/the-satanic-temple-v-holcomb/ 1:22-cv-01859] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364722/the-satanic-temple-v-holcomb/ 1:22-cv-01859] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;"|Dismissed (failure) | |||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65364722/66/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-rokita/ CourtListener.com], ''Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim — Document #66'', District Court, S.D. Indiana</ref> | |||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" | Ongoing | ! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" | Ongoing | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68071163/satanic-temple-inc-v-todd-rokita/ CourtListener.com], ''Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Todd Rokita (23-3247)'', Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
| | | ''Indiana abortion ban challenge but involving no specific pregnant client. TST represented by [[W. James MacNaughton]].'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Abortion | ||
| 9/08/2022 | | 9/08/2022 | ||
| [[Satanic Temple v. TX Hlth and Human Svc]] | | [[Satanic Temple v. TX Hlth and Human Svc]] | ||
Line 67: | Line 70: | ||
| [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66693942/satanic-temple-v-tx-hlth-and-human-svc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 22-20459] | | [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66693942/satanic-temple-v-tx-hlth-and-human-svc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 22-20459] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Failed motion | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Failed motion | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66693942/69/1/satanic-temple-v-tx-hlth-and-human/ CourtListener.com], ''Satanic Temple v. TX Hlth and Human, Published Opinion — Document #69, Attachment #1, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit''</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
| Originating from U.S. District Court case 4:21-CV-387 ("[[The_Satanic_Temple,_Inc._et_al_v._Hellerstedt_et_al|Ann Doe I]]") | | ''Originating from U.S. District Court case 4:21-CV-387 ("[[The_Satanic_Temple,_Inc._et_al_v._Hellerstedt_et_al|Ann Doe I]]")'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;"|Other | ||
| 6/06/2022 | | 6/06/2022 | ||
| [[Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine]]<ref>Matthew Kezhaya is listed as "Movant - Appellant" with "The Satanic Temple Inc." as Plaintiff and renamed after case was initially mistakenly captioned</ref> | | [[Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine]]<ref>Matthew Kezhaya is listed as "Movant - Appellant" with "The Satanic Temple Inc." as Plaintiff and renamed after case was initially mistakenly captioned</ref> | ||
Line 77: | Line 81: | ||
| [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 22-2183] | | [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 22-2183] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Sanctions imposed | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Sanctions imposed | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Affirmed (failure) | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/804826251/1/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ CourtListener.com], ''Attorney Matthew Kezhaya appeals an order of the district court* sanctioning him and his co-counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm the order.''</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
|''TST lawyer [[Matthew Kezhaya]] | |''TST lawyer [[Matthew Kezhaya]]'s failed appeal of sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-58 0:21-cv-00336-WMW] ("Satanic Temple I")'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |Commerce | ||
| 2/25/2022 | | 2/25/2022 | ||
| [[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation]] ("Lamar II") | | [[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation]] ("Lamar II") | ||
| US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas | | US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas | ||
| [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63115599/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-lamar-media-corporation/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 5:22-cv-05033] | | [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63115599/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-lamar-media-corporation/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 5:22-cv-05033] | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |Dismissed (unclear) | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
|''TST Inc. withdrew from a previous state-level lawsuit in February 2021. | |''TST Inc. withdrew from a previous state-level lawsuit in February 2021. August 2023 dismissal in context that "parties have resolved all issues between them".''<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63115599/79/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-lamar-media-corporation/ CourtListener.com], The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation, Stipulation — Document #79</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Defamation | ||
| 2/16/2022 | | 2/16/2022 | ||
| [[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC]] | | [[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC]] | ||
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York | | US District Court for the Southern District of New York | ||
| [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63011247/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-newsweek-magazine-llc/ 1:22-cv-01343] | | [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63011247/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-newsweek-magazine-llc/ 1:22-cv-01343] | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed (failure) | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| ''Lawsuit relates to Newsweek's coverage of [[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al|UFC LLC v. Johnson et al]]''<ref>[https://www.newsweek.com/orgies-harassment-fraud-satanic-temple-rocked-accusations-lawsuit-1644042 Newsweek.com], ''Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit'' by Julia Duin, Oct. 29, 2021</ref><ref>[https://queersatanic.com/footnotes-to-newsweeks-orgies-harassment-fraud-satanic-temple-rocked-by-accusations-lawsuit/ QueerSatanic.com], ''Footnotes to Newsweek’s “Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit”'' by @QueerSatanic, Nov. 4, 2021</ref> | | ''Lawsuit relates to Newsweek's coverage of [[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al|UFC LLC v. Johnson et al]]''<ref>[https://www.newsweek.com/orgies-harassment-fraud-satanic-temple-rocked-accusations-lawsuit-1644042 Newsweek.com], ''Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit'' by Julia Duin, Oct. 29, 2021</ref><ref>[https://queersatanic.com/footnotes-to-newsweeks-orgies-harassment-fraud-satanic-temple-rocked-by-accusations-lawsuit/ QueerSatanic.com], ''Footnotes to Newsweek’s “Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit”'' by @QueerSatanic, Nov. 4, 2021</ref> ''All claims dismissed.'' <ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63011247/27/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-newsweek-magazine-llc/ CourtListener.com] The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLCm Memorandum & Opinion — Document #27</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63011247/134/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-newsweek-magazine-llc/ CourtListener.com], The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC, Memorandum & Opinion — Document #134</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |Abortion | ||
| 2/1/2022 | | 2/1/2022 | ||
| [[The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. Young et al]] ("Ann Doe II") | | [[The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. Young et al]] ("Ann Doe II") | ||
| 459th Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas) | | 459th Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas) | ||
| [https:// | | [https://odysseyweb.traviscountytx.gov/app/RegisterOfActions/#/EB351E1BD0C0C3335AD50A4075095FD7922A6CB13590D6A71A54E3ED5014C5018B9423851665908716918A3069A1B837ECF77F0AF5C8E3C79DBCC144E03437E47C0596704C203B87C161CDB380DF7AEE/anon/portalembed D-1-GN-22-000560] | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |No Movement | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
|''State-level filing distinct from "Ann Doe I" filed the year before in federal court.'' | |''State-level filing distinct from "Ann Doe I" filed the year before in federal court. No docket activity since attorney vacation notification in June 2022'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Abortion | ||
| 2/5/2021 | | 2/5/2021 | ||
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al]] ("Ann Doe I") | |[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al]] ("Ann Doe I") | ||
Line 118: | Line 123: | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ 4:21-cv-00387] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ 4:21-cv-00387] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | ||
! style="background:# | <ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/67/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ CourtListener.com], The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Hellerstedt, Order — Document #67</ref> | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | |||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67601012/18/satanic-temple-v-young/ CourtListener.com], Satanic Temple v. Young (23-20329) in Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed July 10, 2023</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
|'' | |''District court case fully dismissed July 3, 2023.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/67/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ CourtListener.com], Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, July 3, 2023, without leave to replead.</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/68/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ CourtListener.com], Final Judgment, July 3, 2023</ref>, appellate case dismissed because TST "desire to avail themselves of the right to replead"<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67601012/18/satanic-temple-v-young/ CourtListener.com</ref>'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Public monuments | ||
| 2/4/2021 | | 2/4/2021 | ||
|[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of| Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of]] ("Satanic Temple II") | |[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of| Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of]] ("Satanic Temple II") | ||
Line 129: | Line 136: | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;"|Dismissed (failure) | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;"|Dismissed (failure) | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/43/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/ CourtListener.com], ''Defendant’s motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED.''</ref> | <ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/43/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/ CourtListener.com], ''Defendant’s motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED.''</ref> | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Affirmed (failure) | ||
<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal">[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66651784/the-satanic-temple-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ 0:21-cv-03079], Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for original case [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15064653/satanic-temple-the-v-belle-plaine-city-of/ 0:19-cv-01122] ("Satanic Temple I"), consolidated with with [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806077/the-satanic-temple-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 0:21-cv-03081], appealing original case [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/ 0:21-cv-00336] ("Satanic Temple II")</ref> | <ref name="Belle Plaine appeal">[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66651784/the-satanic-temple-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ 0:21-cv-03079], Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for original case [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15064653/satanic-temple-the-v-belle-plaine-city-of/ 0:19-cv-01122] ("Satanic Temple I"), consolidated with with [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806077/the-satanic-temple-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 0:21-cv-03081], appealing original case [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/ 0:21-cv-00336] ("Satanic Temple II")</ref> | ||
| | | | ||
|''Judge sanctioned TST for filing second suit before first was complete'' | |''Duplicative lawsuit. Judge sanctioned TST for filing second suit before first was complete'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Invocations | ||
| 1/20/2021 | | 1/20/2021 | ||
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston]] | |[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston]] | ||
Line 141: | Line 148: | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed (failure) | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed (failure) | ||
<ref>[https://www.universalhub.com/2023/judge-rules-boston-city-council-doesnt-have-let UniversalHub.com], ''Judge rules Boston City Council doesn't have to let Satanists give an invocation if it doesn't want to'', July 31, 2023</ref> | <ref>[https://www.universalhub.com/2023/judge-rules-boston-city-council-doesnt-have-let UniversalHub.com], ''Judge rules Boston City Council doesn't have to let Satanists give an invocation if it doesn't want to'', July 31, 2023</ref> | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Affirmed (failure) | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67667225/satanic-temple-inc-v-city-of-boston/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston (23-1642), Court of Appeals for the First Circuit</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
|TST lawyer Matthew Kezhaya sanctioned for actions related to attempt to depose then-mayoral candidate Michelle Wu on Election Day.<ref>[https://www.universalhub.com/2022/federal-judge-satanists-who-tried-force-michelle UniversalHub.com], ''Federal judge to Satanists and their lawyer, who tried to force Michelle Wu to spend Election Day answering their questions: Hell, no'', April 6, 2022</ref> | |''TST lawyer Matthew Kezhaya sanctioned for actions related to attempt to depose then-mayoral candidate Michelle Wu on Election Day.<ref>[https://www.universalhub.com/2022/federal-judge-satanists-who-tried-force-michelle UniversalHub.com], ''Federal judge to Satanists and their lawyer, who tried to force Michelle Wu to spend Election Day answering their questions: Hell, no'', April 6, 2022</ref> First circuit affirms lower court ruling dismissing TST lawsuit, including protective order.<ref>[https://ecf.ca1.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&pacer=i&caseId=50578&dls_id=00108175549 USCourts.Gov], We hold that TST has not shown that Boston's legislative prayer practice, either on its face or as applied, violates the Establishment Clause or the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a protective order preventing TST from deposing Mayor Wu. We affirm entry of judgment for Boston.</ref>'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |Commerce | ! style="background:#F8CBAD; color:#000000;" |Commerce | ||
Line 167: | Line 175: | ||
|''Case begun by [[United Federation of Churches, LLC|UFC LLC]]''<ref>Court of Appeals Docket #20-15338, District Court# 2:18-cv-00621-DGC, U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix</ref> | |''Case begun by [[United Federation of Churches, LLC|UFC LLC]]''<ref>Court of Appeals Docket #20-15338, District Court# 2:18-cv-00621-DGC, U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Public monuments | ||
| 4/25/2019 | | 4/25/2019 | ||
|[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of|Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of]] ("Satanic Temple I") | |[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of|Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of]] ("Satanic Temple I") | ||
Line 174: | Line 182: | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | ||
<ref>[https://www.startribune.com/satanic-temple-lawsuit-against-belle-plaine-will-move-forward-despite-court-dismissal-of-most-of-its-claims/572010332/?refresh=true StarTribune.com], ''Satanic Temple lawsuit against Belle Plaine will move forward, despite court dismissal of most of its claims; 1 of 10 counts still remains in the Scott County battle over church and state'', Aug. 4, 2020</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15064653/109/satanic-temple-the-v-belle-plaine-city-of/ CourtListener.com], ''ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's promissory-estoppel claim in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv-1122 81 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's motion to strike in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv- 1122 100 is DENIED. 3. The magistrate judge's January 26, 2021 Order in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv-1122 79 is AFFIRMED. 4. Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 10 is GRANTED. 5. Plaintiff 039;s motion to strike in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 29 is DENIED. 6. Defendant's motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 17 is GRANTED. Within fourteen days after the date of this Order, Defendant shall file a mot ion and supporting evidence as to the attorneys' fees Defendant incurred responding to the complaint and seeking sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 9/15/2021. Associated Cases: 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD, 0:21-cv-00336-WMW-JFD (RJE)'' </ref> | <ref>[https://www.startribune.com/satanic-temple-lawsuit-against-belle-plaine-will-move-forward-despite-court-dismissal-of-most-of-its-claims/572010332/?refresh=true StarTribune.com], ''Satanic Temple lawsuit against Belle Plaine will move forward, despite court dismissal of most of its claims; 1 of 10 counts still remains in the Scott County battle over church and state'', Aug. 4, 2020</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15064653/109/satanic-temple-the-v-belle-plaine-city-of/ CourtListener.com], ''ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's promissory-estoppel claim in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv-1122 81 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's motion to strike in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv- 1122 100 is DENIED. 3. The magistrate judge's January 26, 2021 Order in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv-1122 79 is AFFIRMED. 4. Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 10 is GRANTED. 5. Plaintiff 039;s motion to strike in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 29 is DENIED. 6. Defendant's motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 17 is GRANTED. Within fourteen days after the date of this Order, Defendant shall file a mot ion and supporting evidence as to the attorneys' fees Defendant incurred responding to the complaint and seeking sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 9/15/2021. Associated Cases: 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD, 0:21-cv-00336-WMW-JFD (RJE)'' </ref> | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;"| Affirmed (failure)<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal"></ref> | ||
<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal"></ref> | ! | ||
|''Original lawsuit.'' | |||
|} | |} | ||
Line 199: | Line 208: | ||
! scope="col" | Notes | ! scope="col" | Notes | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Commerce | ||
|4/5/2023 | |4/5/2023 | ||
|United Federation of Churches | |[[United Federation of Churches DBA v. Johnson AKA et al]] ("Queer Satanic II") | ||
|King County Superior Court | |King County Superior Court | ||
|[https://dja-prd-ecexap1.kingcounty.gov/?q=node/411&199355=411110 23-2-06120-9 SEA] | |[https://dja-prd-ecexap1.kingcounty.gov/?q=node/411&199355=411110 23-2-06120-9 SEA] | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) | ||
| | |||
| | | | ||
|TST re-filed a new case in Washington state court while pursuing an appeal of the same claims in federal court. | |''TST re-filed a new case in Washington state court while pursuing an appeal of the same claims in federal court. Case was stayed pending resolution of TST's appeal of federal case in Ninth Circuit then dismissed with prejudice Sep. 24, 2024.'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:# | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Defamation & Commerce | ||
|4/3/2020 | |4/3/2020 | ||
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al]] ("Queer Satanic I") | |[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al]] ("Queer Satanic I") | ||
|US District Court for the Western District of Washington | |US District Court for the Western District of Washington | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/ 2:2020-cv-00509] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/ 2:2020-cv-00509] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed ( | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed | ||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" | | (failure) | ||
| | ! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" | Affirmed In Part; Vacated & Remanded In Part | ||
|''Initial claims dismissed[https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedFednofChurchesLLCvJohnsonNo220cv00509RAJ2021BL69458WDWashFe][https://casetext.com/case/united-fedn-of-churches-llc-v-johnson]; amended complaint re-filed[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33342602/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Johnson_et_al], motion for re-consideration dismissed[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/30/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/]; motion to dismiss granted[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/48/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/]''; ''Ninth Circuit appeal | (split) | ||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66805454/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-david-johnson/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], United Federation of Churches LLC v. United Federation of Churches LLC v. David Johnson, et al (23-35060)</ref> | |||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed | |||
(failure) | |||
|''Initial claims dismissed[https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UnitedFednofChurchesLLCvJohnsonNo220cv00509RAJ2021BL69458WDWashFe][https://casetext.com/case/united-fedn-of-churches-llc-v-johnson]; amended complaint re-filed[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33342602/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Johnson_et_al], motion for re-consideration dismissed[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/30/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/]; motion to dismiss granted[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/48/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/]''; ''Ninth Circuit appeal affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66805454/40/1/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-david-johnson/], remainder voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/58/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/]'' | |||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |Commerce | ! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |Commerce | ||
Line 224: | Line 238: | ||
|US District Court for the Southern District of New York | |US District Court for the Southern District of New York | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8152228/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-netflix-inc/ 1:2018-cv-10372] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8152228/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-netflix-inc/ 1:2018-cv-10372] | ||
! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" | | ! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |Settlement (favorable) | ||
(Success) | |||
<ref name="Bloomberg" /><ref>[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26138833/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Netflix,_Inc_et_al PacerMonitor.com], United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
Line 244: | Line 261: | ||
|US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | |US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6322005/doe-v-greitens/ 4:18-cv-00339] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6322005/doe-v-greitens/ 4:18-cv-00339] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed (failure) <ref>[https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c714ba3342cca67d9445894 CaseMind.org], Motion to Dismiss: Granted Defendant. ''This matter seeking declarative and injunctive relief comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory judgment that certain Missouri Statutes are void and (2) injunctive relief against Defendants' enforcement of the statutes. For the reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.''</ref> | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Affirmed (failure) <ref>[https://apnews.com/article/27b897fd742c1efe2e3272626c46ed70 Federal appeals court axes Satanic Temple abortion lawsuit], AP, June 9, 2020. ''The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday filed by a member of the Satanic Temple against a Missouri abortion law. ... An anonymous woman, Judy Doe, sued, arguing the law violates her religious freedom as a Satanic Temple member. The Satanic Temple doesn’t believe in a literal Satan but sees the biblical Satan as a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny. A federal district judge last year ruled against Doe, and the appeals court agreed.''</ref><ref>No. 19-1578, ''A Missouri law requires Judy Doe to certify that she has had a chance to review certain information before having an abortion. This requirement, she alleges, violates her Satanist beliefs. The district court dismissed both of her First Amendment claims, and we affirm.'' ([https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/06/191578P.pdf PDF])</ref><ref>[https:// | (failure) | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Appeal to | |||
<ref>[https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c714ba3342cca67d9445894 CaseMind.org], Motion to Dismiss: Granted Defendant. ''This matter seeking declarative and injunctive relief comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory judgment that certain Missouri Statutes are void and (2) injunctive relief against Defendants' enforcement of the statutes. For the reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.''</ref> | |||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Affirmed | |||
(failure) | |||
<ref>[https://apnews.com/article/27b897fd742c1efe2e3272626c46ed70 Federal appeals court axes Satanic Temple abortion lawsuit], AP, June 9, 2020. ''The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday filed by a member of the Satanic Temple against a Missouri abortion law. ... An anonymous woman, Judy Doe, sued, arguing the law violates her religious freedom as a Satanic Temple member. The Satanic Temple doesn’t believe in a literal Satan but sees the biblical Satan as a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny. A federal district judge last year ruled against Doe, and the appeals court agreed.''</ref><ref>No. 19-1578, ''A Missouri law requires Judy Doe to certify that she has had a chance to review certain information before having an abortion. This requirement, she alleges, violates her Satanist beliefs. The district court dismissed both of her First Amendment claims, and we affirm.'' ([https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/06/191578P.pdf PDF])</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/2894/804010620/3/judy-doe-v-michael-l-parson/ CourtListener.com], Published Signed Opinion, Judy Doe v. Michael L. Parson (19-1578), filed 3/20/2019 </ref> | |||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Appeal to SCOTUS denied | |||
(failure) | |||
<ref>No. 20-385, ''Petitioner Judy Doe (“Petitioner”) moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), for the disqualification of the Hon. Amy Coney Barrett from consideration of the Petition for Certiorari, Case No. 20-385 (the “Petition”) due to her publicly expressed religious beliefs that a human being comes into existence at conception, abortion is murder and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (“Roe”) was a “barbaric” decision that should “be put to an end.”'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-385/158957/20201028113343173_final%20motion.pdf PDF]) </ref><ref>"[https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supreme-court-refuses-to-disqualify-justice-barrett-from-the-satanic-temples-abortion-case-301171560.html Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case]", Press release, Nov. 12, 2020 </ref><ref>20-385, "Certiorari Denied" ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112320zor_7l48.pdf PDF])</ref> | |||
|''TST had also sought to disqualify new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett''<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-385/158957/20201028113343173_final%20motion.pdf SupremeCourt.gov], ''Motion by Petitioner for the Disqualification of | |''TST had also sought to disqualify new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett''<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-385/158957/20201028113343173_final%20motion.pdf SupremeCourt.gov], ''Motion by Petitioner for the Disqualification of | ||
The Hon. Amy Coney Barrett''</ref><ref>[https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supreme-court-refuses-to-disqualify-justice-barrett-from-the-satanic-temples-abortion-case-301171560.html PRNewswire.com], ''Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case''</ref> | The Hon. Amy Coney Barrett''</ref><ref>[https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supreme-court-refuses-to-disqualify-justice-barrett-from-the-satanic-temples-abortion-case-301171560.html PRNewswire.com], ''Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case''</ref> | ||
Line 255: | Line 281: | ||
|US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix | |US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6726362/satanic-temple-v-scottsdale-city-of/ 2:2018-cv-00621] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6726362/satanic-temple-v-scottsdale-city-of/ 2:2018-cv-00621] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Judgment in favor of Defendants (failure) <ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6726362/92/satanic-temple-v-scottsdale-city-of/ CourtListener.com], ''ORDER AND JUDGMENT: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs' claims. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/05/2020. (REK) (Entered: 02/06/2020)''</ref><ref>[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2020/02/29/scottsdale-wins-court-battle-against-satanists-over-invocation/4903564002/ Scottsdale wins court battle against Satanists over right to give invocation; Satanists appeal, Arizona Republic], Feb. 29, 2020. ''A U.S. District Court judge ruled this month that Scottsdale did not discriminate against the Satanic Temple when the city blocked a member of the group from giving an invocation before a City Council meeting in 2016.'' | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Judgment in favor of Defendants | ||
(failure) | |||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6726362/92/satanic-temple-v-scottsdale-city-of/ CourtListener.com], ''ORDER AND JUDGMENT: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs' claims. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/05/2020. (REK) (Entered: 02/06/2020)''</ref><ref>[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2020/02/29/scottsdale-wins-court-battle-against-satanists-over-invocation/4903564002/ Scottsdale wins court battle against Satanists over right to give invocation; Satanists appeal, Arizona Republic], Feb. 29, 2020. ''A U.S. District Court judge ruled this month that Scottsdale did not discriminate against the Satanic Temple when the city blocked a member of the group from giving an invocation before a City Council meeting in 2016.'' | |||
''Judge David Campbell ruled the Satanic Temple did not prove the city had denied its request because of its religious beliefs.'' [https://apnews.com/article/3d00de948174ad7c0a36093f1fdf1752 (AP summary)]</ref> | ''Judge David Campbell ruled the Satanic Temple did not prove the city had denied its request because of its religious beliefs.'' [https://apnews.com/article/3d00de948174ad7c0a36093f1fdf1752 (AP summary)]</ref> | ||
Line 267: | Line 296: | ||
|US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | |US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7760360/the-satanic-temple-v-jeremiah-jay-nixon/ 4:2015-cv-00986] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7760360/the-satanic-temple-v-jeremiah-jay-nixon/ 4:2015-cv-00986] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed (failure) | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Dismissed | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Affirmed (failure) <ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6155672/the-satanic-temple-v-mike-parson/ 16-3387], ''08/28/2018 Open Document JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the Originating Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion. ROGER L. WOLLMAN, MICHAEL J. MELLOY and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER Hrg Sep 2017 [4698520] [16-3387] (AMT) [Entered: 08/28/2018 07:49 AM]'', US Eighth Circuit of Appeals</ref> | (failure) | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Affirmed | |||
(failure) | |||
<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6155672/the-satanic-temple-v-mike-parson/ 16-3387], ''08/28/2018 Open Document JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the Originating Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion. ROGER L. WOLLMAN, MICHAEL J. MELLOY and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER Hrg Sep 2017 [4698520] [16-3387] (AMT) [Entered: 08/28/2018 07:49 AM]'', US Eighth Circuit of Appeals</ref> | |||
| | | | ||
|''Mary Doe was not pregnant at time of filing federal case, so court determined she lacked standing'' | |''Mary Doe was not pregnant at time of filing federal case, so court determined she lacked standing'' | ||
Line 277: | Line 310: | ||
|Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri | |Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri | ||
|[https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/caseNoSearch.do 15AC-CC00205] | |[https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/caseNoSearch.do 15AC-CC00205] | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed (failure) <ref name=":1">''The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday a case brought by a woman who said the state’s abortion restrictions violated her religious beliefs. ... The case dates to 2015, when Doe’s attorneys argued her case in front of the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the case.'' [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/missouris-high-court-tosses-case-alleging-abortion-law-violated-satanic-temple-members-rights/article_ae0e57c3-305e-51e6-b6cd-28699d41fada.html Missouri's high court tosses case alleging abortion law violated Satanic Temple member's rights], ''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'', Feb 13. 2019</ref> | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" | Dismissed | ||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" |State Appeals Court ordered transfer (neutral) <ref>[https://www.courts.mo.gov/file/OSummary_WD80387.pdf WD80387], ''Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer'' ([https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=118276 PDF])</ref><ref>[https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/planned-parenthood-satanic-temple-score-initial-wins-in-abortion-fight/article_4f02f86c-ff07-5bc3-bcc9-2ce44be31cc2.html Planned Parenthood, Satanic Temple score initial wins in abortion fight], St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2017</ref> | (failure) | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |State Supreme Court affirmed (failure) <ref>[https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchDockets.do SC96751], ''Mary Doe appeals the circuit court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her second amended petition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the portion of the Missouri Informed Consent Law... This Court affirms denial of Ms. Doe’s request for injunctive relief. The informed consent law does not adopt any religious tenet, as Ms. Doe claimed. ...Moreover, the informed consent law neither requires a pregnant woman to read the booklet in question nor requires her to have or pay for an ultrasound. It simply provides her with that opportunity. .. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Ms. Doe’s petition for failure to state a claim.'' ([https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136817 PDF])</ref><ref name=":1" /> | |||
<ref name=":1">''The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday a case brought by a woman who said the state’s abortion restrictions violated her religious beliefs. ... The case dates to 2015, when Doe’s attorneys argued her case in front of the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the case.'' [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/missouris-high-court-tosses-case-alleging-abortion-law-violated-satanic-temple-members-rights/article_ae0e57c3-305e-51e6-b6cd-28699d41fada.html Missouri's high court tosses case alleging abortion law violated Satanic Temple member's rights], ''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'', Feb 13. 2019</ref> | |||
! style="background:#FFEB9C; color:#9C6500;" |State Appeals Court ordered transfer | |||
(neutral) | |||
<ref>[https://www.courts.mo.gov/file/OSummary_WD80387.pdf WD80387], ''Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer'' ([https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=118276 PDF])</ref><ref>[https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/planned-parenthood-satanic-temple-score-initial-wins-in-abortion-fight/article_4f02f86c-ff07-5bc3-bcc9-2ce44be31cc2.html Planned Parenthood, Satanic Temple score initial wins in abortion fight], St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2017</ref> | |||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |State Supreme Court affirmed | |||
(failure) | |||
<ref>[https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchDockets.do SC96751], ''Mary Doe appeals the circuit court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her second amended petition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the portion of the Missouri Informed Consent Law... This Court affirms denial of Ms. Doe’s request for injunctive relief. The informed consent law does not adopt any religious tenet, as Ms. Doe claimed. ...Moreover, the informed consent law neither requires a pregnant woman to read the booklet in question nor requires her to have or pay for an ultrasound. It simply provides her with that opportunity. .. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Ms. Doe’s petition for failure to state a claim.'' ([https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136817 PDF])</ref><ref name=":1" /> | |||
|''State supreme court upheld lower court decision unanimously, but two of seven justices had concurring opinion'' | |''State supreme court upheld lower court decision unanimously, but two of seven justices had concurring opinion'' | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 299: | Line 341: | ||
! scope="col" | Notes | ! scope="col" | Notes | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" | | ! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |School | ||
|3/19/2024 | |||
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Shelby County Board of Education]] | |||
|US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee | |||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68356813/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-shelby-county-board-of-education/ 2:24-cv-02178] | |||
! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |Settlement (favorable) | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|''Plaintiff represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Kramer Law Center of Memphis. Case dismissed with school board paying FFRF's legal fees and promising not to discriminate against TST.<ref>[https://ffrf.org/news/releases/breaking-ffrf-settles-satanic-temple-discrimination-lawsuit-with-memphis-area-school/ FFRF/org], ''BREAKING: FFRF settles Satanic Temple discrimination lawsuit with Memphis-area school'', July 18, 2024</ref>'' | |||
|- | |||
! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |School | |||
|3/30/2023 | |3/30/2023 | ||
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School District]] | |[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School District]] | ||
|US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | |US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | ||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67112434/the-satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district/ 5:23-cv-01244] | |[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67112434/the-satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district/ 5:23-cv-01244] | ||
! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" | | ! style="background:#C6EFCE; color:#006100;" |Settlement (favorable) | ||
<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/cases/the-satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district?document=Settlement-Agreement-TST-v-SVSD ACLU.org], ''Settlement Agreement'', Nov. 16, 2023</ref><ref>[https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/lehighvalley/saucon-valley-school-district-to-pay-satanic-temple-200k-in-legal-fees-over-after-school/article_82401e5c-84df-11ee-8a82-f3d05414da7b.html WFMZ-TV], ''Saucon Valley School District to pay Satanic Temple $200K in legal fees over After School Satan Club legal issue'', Nov. 16, 2023</ref> | |||
| | |||
| | | | ||
| | |''School district had withdrawn use of facility for After School Satan club after bomb threat made but claimed an advertising violation; a judge required school to fulfill previous agreement as litigation continued, with school district ultimately paying ACLU $200,000 for legal costs.''<ref>[https://www.aclupa.org/en/cases/satanic-temple-v-saucon-valley-school-district ACLU.org], "ACLU Sues Saucon Valley School District for Prohibiting After School Satan Club from Meeting in District Facilities", May 1, 2023</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Other | ! style="background:#FFC7CE; color:#9C0006;" |Other | ||
Line 406: | Line 459: | ||
A final category is legal threats sent to critics and former members, which The Satanic Temple has a reputation for going back as far as 2014, as described by the Temple's first "high priest" Brian Werner.<ref>[https://youtu.be/ZIN4aZ8IMz0?t=419 YouTube.com], ''High Priest Brian Werner resigns from The Satanic Temple'', relevant portion at 6:59 - "I get an email from the lawyers accepting my resignation with an attached six page non-disclosure agreement. Really dude? After everything you and me have been through in the last three years? You've been a guest in several of my homes. You know my wife. I've been a guest in yours. You've embraced me and called me brother. You couldn't even pick up a telephone and tolk to me? You had to hide behind the lawyers. What is this, Scientology?"</ref> However, it was also present as part of the Great Schism of 2018, which involved TST threatening many of them. | A final category is legal threats sent to critics and former members, which The Satanic Temple has a reputation for going back as far as 2014, as described by the Temple's first "high priest" Brian Werner.<ref>[https://youtu.be/ZIN4aZ8IMz0?t=419 YouTube.com], ''High Priest Brian Werner resigns from The Satanic Temple'', relevant portion at 6:59 - "I get an email from the lawyers accepting my resignation with an attached six page non-disclosure agreement. Really dude? After everything you and me have been through in the last three years? You've been a guest in several of my homes. You know my wife. I've been a guest in yours. You've embraced me and called me brother. You couldn't even pick up a telephone and tolk to me? You had to hide behind the lawyers. What is this, Scientology?"</ref> However, it was also present as part of the Great Schism of 2018, which involved TST threatening many of them. | ||
<ref>[https://twitter.com/TheSatanicWiki/status/1462231609776619521 Twitter.com], @TheSatanicWiki posting The Satanic Temple's National Council Meeting Notes for Sept. 9, 2018. Relevant portion: "Legal letters have been sent to ex-CHs [Chapterheads] who have violated NDA [Non-Disclosure/Non-Disparagement Agreement] / AA [Affiliate Agreement] terms"</ref> Finally, an especially egregious example came to light in June 2022 when The Satanic Temple sent a series of emails to the TikToker @TheSatanicHousewife in reaction to one of her videos, threatening her with a lawsuit if she did not record the prepared statement they sent her.<ref>[https://queersatanic.com/the-satanic-housewife-videos-and-legal-threat-by-the-satanic-temple/ QueerSatanic.com], ''“The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple''</ref> | <ref>[https://twitter.com/TheSatanicWiki/status/1462231609776619521 Twitter.com], @TheSatanicWiki posting The Satanic Temple's National Council Meeting Notes for Sept. 9, 2018. Relevant portion: "Legal letters have been sent to ex-CHs [Chapterheads] who have violated NDA [Non-Disclosure/Non-Disparagement Agreement] / AA [Affiliate Agreement] terms"</ref> Finally, an especially egregious example came to light in June 2022 when The Satanic Temple sent a series of emails to the TikToker @TheSatanicHousewife in reaction to one of her videos, threatening her with a lawsuit if she did not record the prepared statement they sent her.<ref>[https://queersatanic.com/the-satanic-housewife-videos-and-legal-threat-by-the-satanic-temple/ QueerSatanic.com], ''“The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple''</ref> | ||
== Criminal Court Cases == | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ | |||
!Issue | |||
!Date Filed | |||
!Case Name | |||
!Original Jurisdiction | |||
!Case Number | |||
!Result | |||
!Notes | |||
|- | |||
|Attempted bombing | |||
|5/7/2024 | |||
|United States ''v.'' Terpstra | |||
|US Western District of Michigan | |||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68510101/united-states-v-terpstra/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 1:24-cr-00067] | |||
|Ongoing | |||
|Defendant Luke Isaac Terpstra also indicted on federal charges relating to Michigan case# 2024000021. | |||
|- | |||
|Attempted bombing | |||
|4/15/2024 | |||
|United States v. Palmer | |||
|US District Court of Massachusetts | |||
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68446029/united-states-v-palmer/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 1:24-mj-01222] | |||
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68514994/united-states-v-palmer/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 1:24-cr-10132] | |||
|Ongoing | |||
|Defendant Sean Patrick Palmer accused of throwing an improvised explosive device, charged with "18 U.S.C. § 844(i) - Maliciously damaging or destroying a building by means of fire or explosive" | |||
|- | |||
|Attempted bombing | |||
|[UNK] | |||
|State of Michigan v. Terpstra | |||
|78th District Court (Newaygo County, Mich.) | |||
|2024000021 | |||
|Ongoing | |||
|Defendant Luke Isaac Terpstra accused of making explosives in his home with plan to "blow up" TST headquarters; charged with "Explosives - Possession of bombs with unlawful intent" in January 2024; state ID# 202402057 | |||
|- | |||
|Vandalism | |||
|[UNK] | |||
|State of Iowa v. Cassidy | |||
|Polk County (Iowa) District Court | |||
|SRCR376781 | |||
|Pleaded guilty | |||
|Defendant Michael Patrick Cassidy was accused of hate crime in relation to destruction of a winter holiday Baphomet display at the Iowa state capitol; charged with "729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime"; Cassidy pleaded guilty to misdemeanor and received two years probation.<ref>''Michael Cassidy, a former congressional and legislative candidate, was set for trial June 3, but his attorney filed a guilty plea on his behalf to an aggravated misdemeanor count of third-degree criminal mischief''. [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2024/05/28/iowa-capitol-satanic-temple-display-vandal-michael-cassidy-sentenced-probation/73881680007/ DesMoinesRegister.com], May 28, 2024</ref> | |||
|- | |||
|Arson | |||
|[UNK] | |||
|State of Massachusetts v. Lucey | |||
|Salem (Mass.) District Court | |||
|[UNK] | |||
|In custody at Bridgewater State Hospital as of 2/22/2024 | |||
|Defendant Daniel Damien Lucey accused of setting a fire at The Satanic Temple headquarters in June 2022; was charged with "arson, civil rights violations and destruction of a place of worship"; State ID# M140599 | |||
|} | |||
="The Satanic Temple" in its own words= | ="The Satanic Temple" in its own words= | ||
Line 424: | Line 531: | ||
|4/05/2023 | |4/05/2023 | ||
|'''"a religious organization"''' | |'''"a religious organization"''' | ||
|United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al ("[[Queer Satanic II | |United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al ("[[Queer Satanic II|Queer Satanic II]]") | ||
|Plaintiff United Federation of Churches, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple”) (abbreviated “TST”) ... TST is a religious organization. | |Plaintiff United Federation of Churches, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple”) (abbreviated “TST”) ... TST is a religious organization. | ||
|- | |- |
Latest revision as of 23:48, 26 March 2025
- The United Federation of Churches, LLC does business as "The Satanic Temple", and owns its trademarks. It was originally registered in 2014. Its governing persons are jointly Cevin Soling and Douglas Misicko, as well as their pseudonyms. It is a for-profit Limited Liability Company.
- The Satanic Temple Inc achieved Public Charity Status in 2019 as "a church or a convention or association of churches." It was originally registered in 2017 as "The Satanic Temple" before changing to its current name following the change in its federal tax status. Its governing board consists of Misicko, solely.
Both entities have been involved in a number of lawsuits under the name "The Satanic Temple", including "Inc" taking over some recent appeals of cases begun by "UFC LLC". In addition, TST members have been involved in religious discrimination arguments when representing themselves or when represented by the ACLU.
Lawsuits
Nonprofit Church Lawsuits
The Satanic Temple Inc. became the primary legal entity used for in suits involving "The Satanic Temple" beginning in 2019; this followed IRS recognition of the entity as a nonprofit church. The shift would include at one instance of taking over case begun by United Federation of Churches LLC. However, a point of contention in Cave et al v. Thurston between TST and the state of Arkansas has been which entity has actually officially involved in that case, begun in May 2018.
Issue | Date Filed | Case Name | Original Jurisdiction | Case Number | Original Result | First Appeal | Second Appeal | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Invocations | 5/03/2023 | The Satanic Temple Inc. v. The City of Chicago | US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | 1:23-cv-02780 | Dismissed (failure) | Suit targeting the city of Chicago for failure to invite TST minister Adam Vavrick to give invocation.[1]Suit voluntarily dismissed with prejudice July 24,2024, after plaintiff Vavrick announced his departure from TST's Ministry program July 8.[2][3] | ||
Defamation | 11/23/2022 | Satanic Temple, Inc v. Jessica Snow | 261st Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas) | D-1-GN-22-006797 | No Movement | Suit targeting "The Satanic Housewife" for TikTok videos.[4][5][6] No docket activity since complaint filed in November 2022. | ||
Abortion | 9/30/2022 | The Satanic Temple v. Little | US District Court for the District of Idaho | 1:22-cv-00411 | Dismissed (failure) | Ongoing | Idaho abortion ban challenge. Complaint largely identical to The Satanic Temple v. Rokita (22-1859) except for references to Idaho instead of Indiana. | |
Abortion | 9/21/2022 | The Satanic Temple v. Rokita | US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana | 1:22-cv-01859 | Dismissed (failure) | Ongoing | Indiana abortion ban challenge but involving no specific pregnant client. TST represented by W. James MacNaughton. | |
Abortion | 9/08/2022 | Satanic Temple v. TX Hlth and Human Svc | US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 22-20459 | Failed motion | Dismissed (failure) | Originating from U.S. District Court case 4:21-CV-387 ("Ann Doe I") | |
Other | 6/06/2022 | Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine[11] | US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | 22-2183 | Sanctions imposed | Affirmed (failure) | TST lawyer Matthew Kezhaya's failed appeal of sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("Satanic Temple I") | |
Commerce | 2/25/2022 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation ("Lamar II") | US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas | 5:22-cv-05033 | Dismissed (unclear) | TST Inc. withdrew from a previous state-level lawsuit in February 2021. August 2023 dismissal in context that "parties have resolved all issues between them".[13] | ||
Defamation | 2/16/2022 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC | US District Court for the Southern District of New York | 1:22-cv-01343 | Dismissed (failure) | Lawsuit relates to Newsweek's coverage of UFC LLC v. Johnson et al[14][15] All claims dismissed. [16][17] | ||
Abortion | 2/1/2022 | The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. Young et al ("Ann Doe II") | 459th Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas) | D-1-GN-22-000560 | No Movement | State-level filing distinct from "Ann Doe I" filed the year before in federal court. No docket activity since attorney vacation notification in June 2022 | ||
Abortion | 2/5/2021 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al ("Ann Doe I") | US District Court for the Southern District of Texas | 4:21-cv-00387 | Dismissed (failure) | Dismissed (failure) | District court case fully dismissed July 3, 2023.[20][21], appellate case dismissed because TST "desire to avail themselves of the right to replead"[22] | |
Public monuments | 2/4/2021 | Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple II") | US District Court for the District of Minnesota | 0:21-cv-00336 | Dismissed (failure) | Affirmed (failure) | Duplicative lawsuit. Judge sanctioned TST for filing second suit before first was complete | |
Invocations | 1/20/2021 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston | US District Court of Massachusetts - Boston | 1:21-cv-10102 | Dismissed (failure) | Affirmed (failure) | TST lawyer Matthew Kezhaya sanctioned for actions related to attempt to depose then-mayoral candidate Michelle Wu on Election Day.[27] First circuit affirms lower court ruling dismissing TST lawsuit, including protective order.[28] | |
Commerce | 9/27/2020 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Advertising of Louisiana, LLC ("Lamar I") | 19th West Circuit Court 5 (Benton County, Ark.) | 04CV-20-2100 | Terminated (unclear) | TST Inc. withdrew lawsuit but no terms available, if any | ||
Invocations | 3/2/2020 | The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. City of Scottsdale | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 20-15338 | - | Affirmed (failure) | Case begun by UFC LLC[34] | |
Public monuments | 4/25/2019 | Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple I") | US District Court for the District of Minnesota | 0:19-cv-01122 | Dismissed (failure) | Affirmed (failure)[24] | Original lawsuit. |
For-Profit Corporation Lawsuits
The United Federation of Churches, LLC has been involved in a number of lawsuits since its formation.
In 2018, the company sued Netflix Inc. and Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. in the Southern District of New York over use of a breastless Baphomet statue with children in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, claiming defamation and that its intellectual property rights had been violated, harming its business reputation.[37]
The suit was eventually dismissed with prejudice after Netflix agreed to give a copyright credit on all episodes that had been filmed.[38]
The following list is non-exhaustive and includes several cases represented by lawyers of The Satanic Temple but did not include them as plaintiffs.
Issue | Date Filed | Case Name | Original Jurisdiction | Case Number | Original Result | First Appeal | Second Appeal | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Commerce | 4/5/2023 | United Federation of Churches DBA v. Johnson AKA et al ("Queer Satanic II") | King County Superior Court | 23-2-06120-9 SEA | Dismissed (failure) | TST re-filed a new case in Washington state court while pursuing an appeal of the same claims in federal court. Case was stayed pending resolution of TST's appeal of federal case in Ninth Circuit then dismissed with prejudice Sep. 24, 2024. | ||
Defamation & Commerce | 4/3/2020 | United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al ("Queer Satanic I") | US District Court for the Western District of Washington | 2:2020-cv-00509 | Dismissed
(failure) |
Affirmed In Part; Vacated & Remanded In Part
(split) |
Dismissed
(failure) |
Initial claims dismissed[1][2]; amended complaint re-filed[3], motion for re-consideration dismissed[4]; motion to dismiss granted[5]; Ninth Circuit appeal affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part [6], remainder voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff[7] |
Commerce | 11/8/2018 | United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al | US District Court for the Southern District of New York | 1:2018-cv-10372 | Settlement (favorable)
(Success) |
TST utilized outside law firm D'agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman LLP | ||
Public monuments | 7/12/2018 | Cave et al v. Thurston | US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas | 4:18-cv-00342 | Ongoing | "Doug Misicko" and "Satanic Temple" listed as Intervenors[41] | ||
Abortion | 2/28/2018 | Doe v. Greitens et al ("Judy Doe") [42] | US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | 4:18-cv-00339 | Dismissed
(failure) |
Affirmed
(failure) |
Appeal to SCOTUS denied
(failure) |
TST had also sought to disqualify new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett[50][51] |
Invocations | 2/26/2018 | Satanic Temple et al v. Scottsdale, City of et al | US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix | 2:2018-cv-00621 | Judgment in favor of Defendants
(failure) |
Case continued by The Satanic Temple Inc | ||
Abortion | 6/23/2015 | The Satanic Temple et al v. Jeremiah Jay Nixon et al. ("Mary Doe II") | US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | 4:2015-cv-00986 | Dismissed
(failure) |
Affirmed
(failure) |
Mary Doe was not pregnant at time of filing federal case, so court determined she lacked standing | |
Abortion | 5/11/2015 | Mary Doe v. Jeremiah J Nixon et al ("Mary Doe I") | Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri | 15AC-CC00205 | Dismissed
(failure) |
State Appeals Court ordered transfer
(neutral) |
State Supreme Court affirmed
(failure) |
State supreme court upheld lower court decision unanimously, but two of seven justices had concurring opinion |
Other Lawsuits
Early legal cases involved The Satanic Temple or its members being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, however, contrary to popular belief, the Temple's only involvement in the ACLU's successful case to to remove the 10 Commandments monument from the Oklahoma State Capitol (Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission) was a footnote from the opinion.[59]
Issue | Date Filed | Case Name | Original Jurisdiction | Case Number | Original Result | First Appeal | Second Appeal | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
School | 3/19/2024 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Shelby County Board of Education | US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee | 2:24-cv-02178 | Settlement (favorable) | Plaintiff represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Kramer Law Center of Memphis. Case dismissed with school board paying FFRF's legal fees and promising not to discriminate against TST.[60] | ||
School | 3/30/2023 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School District | US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 5:23-cv-01244 | Settlement (favorable) | School district had withdrawn use of facility for After School Satan club after bomb threat made but claimed an advertising violation; a judge required school to fulfill previous agreement as litigation continued, with school district ultimately paying ACLU $200,000 for legal costs.[63] | ||
Other | 9/11/2018 | Mayle v. Chicago Park District ("Emotional Support Hog") | US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | 1:18-cv-06211 | Dismissed (failure) [64][65] | Affirmed (failure) | Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 0:19-cv-03208 | |
Other | 4/24/2018 | Mayle v. The State of Illinois ("Bigamy II") | US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | 1:18-cv-02924 | Dismissed (failure) [66] | Affirmed (failure) | Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 0:19-cv-01691 | |
Other | 5/5/2017 | Mayle v. The Congress of the United States of America ("In God We Trust") | US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | 1:17-cv-03417 | Dismissed (failure) [67] | Affirmed (failure) [68] | Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 17-3221 | |
Other | 4/10/2017 | Mayle v. Orr, et al ("Bigamy I") | US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois | 1:17-cv-00449 | Dismissed (failure) [69][70] | Pro se TST Member; intended appeal failed due to Plaintiff msising filing deadline | ||
Invocations | 1/9/2017 | Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough | United States District Court - District of Alaska | 3:17-cv-00007 | Returned to State Superior Court (neutral) | ACLU representing a TST member | ||
Invocations | 12/14/2016 | Hunt, Lance vs. Kenai Peninsula Borough AP | Third Judicial District Superior Court - Anchorage | 3AN-16-10652CI | Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs (success) [71] | ACLU representing a TST member | ||
Public Monuments | 5/4/2016 | Kondrat'yev et al v. City of Pensacola et al | Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) | 3:16-cv-00195 | Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs (Success) [72] | Affirmed (success) [73] | Reversed (failure) [74] | Freedom From Religion Foundation representing a TST member, between first appeal and second appeal, U.S. Supreme Court decided American Legion v. American Humanist Association leading to 11th Circuit Court to reverse decision. |
Public Monuments | 3/24/2015 | Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. et al v. Franklin County, Indiana[75] | US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana | 1:2015-cv-00484 | Settled Out of Court (success) [76][77][78] | ACLU representing United Federation of Churches LLC |
Other Legal Actions
Additionally, there are an unknown number of other cases The Satanic Temple or its affiliate entities may have been involved in either in the capacity of submitting amicus briefs, as with St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, or other legal complaints that are not lawsuits.[79][80]
For example, in communication with the state of Arkansas for Cave v. Thurston, The Satanic Temple revealed that TST had raised three administrative complaints to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination:[81]
- The Satanic Temple v. Window World of Boston LLC (18BPA02782)
- The Satanic Temple v. Twitter (18BPA00827)
- The Satanic Temple v. Facebook (case number unknown)
Additionally, as part of their federal lawsuit against the city of Boston, Mass., a fourth such case came to light:[82]
However, TST had only publicly revealed the complaint against Twitter as part of a fundraising effort, which also involved disclosing that attorney Marc Randazza was representing the Temple in the complaint, over the objections of many local chapters. [83] A final category is legal threats sent to critics and former members, which The Satanic Temple has a reputation for going back as far as 2014, as described by the Temple's first "high priest" Brian Werner.[84] However, it was also present as part of the Great Schism of 2018, which involved TST threatening many of them. [85] Finally, an especially egregious example came to light in June 2022 when The Satanic Temple sent a series of emails to the TikToker @TheSatanicHousewife in reaction to one of her videos, threatening her with a lawsuit if she did not record the prepared statement they sent her.[86]
Criminal Court Cases
Issue | Date Filed | Case Name | Original Jurisdiction | Case Number | Result | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attempted bombing | 5/7/2024 | United States v. Terpstra | US Western District of Michigan | 1:24-cr-00067 | Ongoing | Defendant Luke Isaac Terpstra also indicted on federal charges relating to Michigan case# 2024000021. |
Attempted bombing | 4/15/2024 | United States v. Palmer | US District Court of Massachusetts | 1:24-mj-01222 | Ongoing | Defendant Sean Patrick Palmer accused of throwing an improvised explosive device, charged with "18 U.S.C. § 844(i) - Maliciously damaging or destroying a building by means of fire or explosive" |
Attempted bombing | [UNK] | State of Michigan v. Terpstra | 78th District Court (Newaygo County, Mich.) | 2024000021 | Ongoing | Defendant Luke Isaac Terpstra accused of making explosives in his home with plan to "blow up" TST headquarters; charged with "Explosives - Possession of bombs with unlawful intent" in January 2024; state ID# 202402057 |
Vandalism | [UNK] | State of Iowa v. Cassidy | Polk County (Iowa) District Court | SRCR376781 | Pleaded guilty | Defendant Michael Patrick Cassidy was accused of hate crime in relation to destruction of a winter holiday Baphomet display at the Iowa state capitol; charged with "729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime"; Cassidy pleaded guilty to misdemeanor and received two years probation.[87] |
Arson | [UNK] | State of Massachusetts v. Lucey | Salem (Mass.) District Court | [UNK] | In custody at Bridgewater State Hospital as of 2/22/2024 | Defendant Daniel Damien Lucey accused of setting a fire at The Satanic Temple headquarters in June 2022; was charged with "arson, civil rights violations and destruction of a place of worship"; State ID# M140599 |
"The Satanic Temple" in its own words
An incomplete list of the ways The Satanic Temple has described itself for official purposes, such as court complaints, depositions, press releases, and internal documents, with each listed in reverse chronological order (most recent at top, earliest at bottom).
References
- ↑ CourthouseNews.com, "Satanic Temple sues Chicago", May 3, 2023. The Satanic Temple sued the city of Chicago in federal court Wednesday over its refusal to allow an ordained minister of the Satanic Temple to deliver an invocation before City Council meetings “without providing any clear explanation of why.” The Establishment Clause requires that the opportunity to deliver a legislative prayer be made available “in a non-discriminatory manner,” according to the lawsuit.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Civil case dismissed with prejudice - Document #36, The Satanic Temple Inc. v. The City of Chicago (1:23-cv-02780), Northern District of Illinois.
- ↑ Facebook.com, Facebook update by Adam Vavrick July 8, 2024: "Left Job at Satanic Ministry - Minister of Satan"
- ↑ TST complaint filed Nov. 23, 2022
- ↑ SatanicEurope.Wordpress.com, analysis and interview with defendant.
- ↑ QueerSatanic.com, “The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple
- ↑ CourtListener.com, The Satanic Temple v. Labrador, et al. (24-1243), in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; case opened March 1, 2024.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim — Document #66, District Court, S.D. Indiana
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Todd Rokita (23-3247), Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Satanic Temple v. TX Hlth and Human, Published Opinion — Document #69, Attachment #1, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- ↑ Matthew Kezhaya is listed as "Movant - Appellant" with "The Satanic Temple Inc." as Plaintiff and renamed after case was initially mistakenly captioned
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Attorney Matthew Kezhaya appeals an order of the district court* sanctioning him and his co-counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm the order.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation, Stipulation — Document #79
- ↑ Newsweek.com, Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit by Julia Duin, Oct. 29, 2021
- ↑ QueerSatanic.com, Footnotes to Newsweek’s “Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit” by @QueerSatanic, Nov. 4, 2021
- ↑ CourtListener.com The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLCm Memorandum & Opinion — Document #27
- ↑ CourtListener.com, The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC, Memorandum & Opinion — Document #134
- ↑ CourtListener.com, The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Hellerstedt, Order — Document #67
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Satanic Temple v. Young (23-20329) in Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed July 10, 2023
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, July 3, 2023, without leave to replead.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Final Judgment, July 3, 2023
- ↑ [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67601012/18/satanic-temple-v-young/ CourtListener.com
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Defendant’s motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED.
- ↑ Jump up to: 24.0 24.1 0:21-cv-03079, Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for original case 0:19-cv-01122 ("Satanic Temple I"), consolidated with with 0:21-cv-03081, appealing original case 0:21-cv-00336 ("Satanic Temple II")
- ↑ UniversalHub.com, Judge rules Boston City Council doesn't have to let Satanists give an invocation if it doesn't want to, July 31, 2023
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston (23-1642), Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- ↑ UniversalHub.com, Federal judge to Satanists and their lawyer, who tried to force Michelle Wu to spend Election Day answering their questions: Hell, no, April 6, 2022
- ↑ USCourts.Gov, We hold that TST has not shown that Boston's legislative prayer practice, either on its face or as applied, violates the Establishment Clause or the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a protective order preventing TST from deposing Mayor Wu. We affirm entry of judgment for Boston.
- ↑ 04CV-20-2100 - Case Filed: Sep. 27, 2020; Terminated: Feb 26, 2021 via voluntary dismissal (without prejudice)
- ↑ Dallas Observer, "Satanists Posted a Dallas Billboard Advocating for Reproductive Rights: 'Abortions Save Lives!'" Dec. 22, 2020, In September, TST sued Lamar Advertising Co. for religious discrimination because it had refused to post the religious organization’s designs. The advertising giant denies the temple’s initial allegations, according to a TST press release. Although Goodwin can’t comment on the active lawsuit, she said TST ultimately struck a deal with billboard company Clear Channel Outdoor.
- ↑ Video of Oral Arguments to 20-15338 The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale
- ↑ Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Satanist Invocation in Scottsdale (AZ), by Hemant Mehta for Friendly Atheist
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision upholding lower court ruling
- ↑ Court of Appeals Docket #20-15338, District Court# 2:18-cv-00621-DGC, U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix
- ↑ StarTribune.com, Satanic Temple lawsuit against Belle Plaine will move forward, despite court dismissal of most of its claims; 1 of 10 counts still remains in the Scott County battle over church and state, Aug. 4, 2020
- ↑ CourtListener.com, ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's promissory-estoppel claim in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv-1122 81 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's motion to strike in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv- 1122 100 is DENIED. 3. The magistrate judge's January 26, 2021 Order in Satanic Temple I, No. 19-cv-1122 79 is AFFIRMED. 4. Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 10 is GRANTED. 5. Plaintiff 039;s motion to strike in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 29 is DENIED. 6. Defendant's motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336 17 is GRANTED. Within fourteen days after the date of this Order, Defendant shall file a mot ion and supporting evidence as to the attorneys' fees Defendant incurred responding to the complaint and seeking sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 9/15/2021. Associated Cases: 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD, 0:21-cv-00336-WMW-JFD (RJE)
- ↑ Courthousenews.com, By misappropriating TST Baphomet with Children (which is a registered copyright and famous mark of TST) to publish this false and defamatory depiction of TST, Defendants have engaged in three classes of wrong: copyright infringement (Claim 1) trademark violation (Claim 2), and injury to business reputation (Claim 3).
- ↑ Jump up to: 38.0 38.1 Netflix Makes ‘Amicable’ Deal With the Devil Over Sabrina, Bloomberg.com, Nov. 23, 2018, An attorney for the Temple, Bruce H. Lederman, told Bloomberg Law Netflix agreed within 10 days of the Temple’s suit to give the it (sic) copyright credit for the statute on all episodes that have been filmed.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, United Federation of Churches LLC v. United Federation of Churches LLC v. David Johnson, et al (23-35060)
- ↑ PacerMonitor.com, United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al
- ↑ Arkansas Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint to begin the case 5/23/2018] on behalf of its clients, but The Satanic Temple and its clients made their motion to join as Intervenors 7/12/2018, beginning TST's involvement.
- ↑ "The Satanic Temple" was not named in the lawsuit as a plaintiff, but "Judy Doe" used the same attorney, W. James MacNaughton, who represented "Mary Doe" at a similar case in Missouri's State Supreme Court and the failed federal case for "Mary Doe"
- ↑ CaseMind.org, Motion to Dismiss: Granted Defendant. This matter seeking declarative and injunctive relief comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory judgment that certain Missouri Statutes are void and (2) injunctive relief against Defendants' enforcement of the statutes. For the reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.
- ↑ Federal appeals court axes Satanic Temple abortion lawsuit, AP, June 9, 2020. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday filed by a member of the Satanic Temple against a Missouri abortion law. ... An anonymous woman, Judy Doe, sued, arguing the law violates her religious freedom as a Satanic Temple member. The Satanic Temple doesn’t believe in a literal Satan but sees the biblical Satan as a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny. A federal district judge last year ruled against Doe, and the appeals court agreed.
- ↑ No. 19-1578, A Missouri law requires Judy Doe to certify that she has had a chance to review certain information before having an abortion. This requirement, she alleges, violates her Satanist beliefs. The district court dismissed both of her First Amendment claims, and we affirm. (PDF)
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Published Signed Opinion, Judy Doe v. Michael L. Parson (19-1578), filed 3/20/2019
- ↑ No. 20-385, Petitioner Judy Doe (“Petitioner”) moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), for the disqualification of the Hon. Amy Coney Barrett from consideration of the Petition for Certiorari, Case No. 20-385 (the “Petition”) due to her publicly expressed religious beliefs that a human being comes into existence at conception, abortion is murder and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (“Roe”) was a “barbaric” decision that should “be put to an end.” (PDF)
- ↑ "Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case", Press release, Nov. 12, 2020
- ↑ 20-385, "Certiorari Denied" (PDF)
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, Motion by Petitioner for the Disqualification of The Hon. Amy Coney Barrett
- ↑ PRNewswire.com, Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case
- ↑ CourtListener.com, ORDER AND JUDGMENT: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs' claims. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/05/2020. (REK) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
- ↑ Scottsdale wins court battle against Satanists over right to give invocation; Satanists appeal, Arizona Republic, Feb. 29, 2020. A U.S. District Court judge ruled this month that Scottsdale did not discriminate against the Satanic Temple when the city blocked a member of the group from giving an invocation before a City Council meeting in 2016. Judge David Campbell ruled the Satanic Temple did not prove the city had denied its request because of its religious beliefs. (AP summary)
- ↑ 16-3387, 08/28/2018 Open Document JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the Originating Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion. ROGER L. WOLLMAN, MICHAEL J. MELLOY and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER Hrg Sep 2017 [4698520] [16-3387] (AMT) [Entered: 08/28/2018 07:49 AM], US Eighth Circuit of Appeals
- ↑ Jump up to: 55.0 55.1 The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday a case brought by a woman who said the state’s abortion restrictions violated her religious beliefs. ... The case dates to 2015, when Doe’s attorneys argued her case in front of the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the case. Missouri's high court tosses case alleging abortion law violated Satanic Temple member's rights, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb 13. 2019
- ↑ WD80387, Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer (PDF)
- ↑ Planned Parenthood, Satanic Temple score initial wins in abortion fight, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2017
- ↑ SC96751, Mary Doe appeals the circuit court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her second amended petition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the portion of the Missouri Informed Consent Law... This Court affirms denial of Ms. Doe’s request for injunctive relief. The informed consent law does not adopt any religious tenet, as Ms. Doe claimed. ...Moreover, the informed consent law neither requires a pregnant woman to read the booklet in question nor requires her to have or pay for an ultrasound. It simply provides her with that opportunity. .. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Ms. Doe’s petition for failure to state a claim. (PDF)
- ↑ OSCN.net, Footnote 8. One such request was from the Satanic Temple, who requested "a monument to Baphomet, which is a form of Satan, to be placed on the Capitol grounds." Record on Accelerated Appeal Ex. 4 (Deposition of Trait Thompson at 30). On December 19, 2013, the Commission minutes reflect Commission Chair, Trait Thompson, moved to put a moratorium on monument requests:
- ↑ FFRF/org, BREAKING: FFRF settles Satanic Temple discrimination lawsuit with Memphis-area school, July 18, 2024
- ↑ ACLU.org, Settlement Agreement, Nov. 16, 2023
- ↑ WFMZ-TV, Saucon Valley School District to pay Satanic Temple $200K in legal fees over After School Satan Club legal issue, Nov. 16, 2023
- ↑ ACLU.org, "ACLU Sues Saucon Valley School District for Prohibiting After School Satan Club from Meeting in District Facilities", May 1, 2023
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
- ↑ ChicagoTribune.com, July 10, 2019, Chicago man continues legal fight to bring his ‘emotional support’ pig to parks
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
- ↑ ChicagoTribune.com, June 5, 2018; Chicago man, self-described satanist, loses latest battle to remove 'In God We Trust' from U.S. money
- ↑ Justia.com, The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his complaint, rejecting claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses.
- ↑ Leagle.com, Dismissal order
- ↑ Courtlistener.com, Motion for extension to file notice of appeal denied
- ↑ PeninsulaClarion.com, Satanic Temple invocation prompts protest, walkouts at assembly meeting, June 18, 2019>
- ↑ CourtListener.com, ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (doc. 31 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 30 ) is DENIED. Bayview Cross violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and circuit precedent, and it must be removed within thirty (30) days. The City is ordered to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $1.00; and parties are directed to follow the local rules of this court with regard to attorney fees to which plaintiffs may be entitled. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 06/19/2017. (MB) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
- ↑ Casetext.com, No. 17-13025, Sep. 7, 2018. The City of Pensacola, Florida appeals a district court decision ordering it to remove a 34-foot Latin cross from a public park on the ground that the City’s maintenance of the cross violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Having concluded that we are bound by existing Circuit precedent, we find ourselves constrained to affirm.
- ↑ Justia.com, Case: 17-13025, Feb. 19,2020. Having reconsidered the case in light of American Legion, we conclude, as the Supreme Court did there, that “the Cross does not offend the Constitution.” See id. at 2090. For the foregoing reasons, we hold (1) that we remain bound by this Court’s decision in Rabun to conclude that plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge Pensacola’s maintenance of the Bayview Park cross, but (2) that when American Legion—rather than Rabun (and through it, Lemon)—is applied, the cross’s presence on city property does not violate the Establishment Clause. REVERSED.Case: 17-13025 Date Filed: 02/19/2020
- ↑ United Federation of Churches LLC d/b/a The Satanic Temple was a plaintiff on the case, however, both it and the Freedom from Religion Foundation were represented by Gavin Minor Rose with the ACLU of Indiana
- ↑ IndyStar, "Satanic Temple lawsuit over Nativity scene dismissed", Dec. 31, 2015. As part of the settlement, the county agreed to let nonresidents apply for a permit, but they must have a local contact
- ↑ Thomas More Society, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims
- ↑ Eagle 99.3 FM, "Lawsuit Settlement In Place For Satanic Display At Courthouse" Dec. 18, 2015. According to the settlement, Franklin County has agreed to amend its ordinance concerning displays at the courthouse within 30 days. The amended ordinance for the courthouse display permitting process will accept the designation of a local contact in lieu of requiring that sponsorship be wholly by citizens of Franklin County. Essentially, The Satanic Temple could put up its goat-head display at the courthouse if it finds a resident of Franklin County or any adjacent Indiana county (Dearborn, Ripley, Rush, Decatur, Fayette, or Union counties) willing to serve as that local contact. The contact must be a person who lives or works in Franklin County and assumes responsibility for the display.
- ↑ (CourtListener.com, 1:21-cv-02337, St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
- ↑ No. 21-2158, Amicus brief for The Satanic Temple, Inc. In support of St. Michael’s Media, Inc. Arguing for affirmance (PDF)
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Cave v. Thurston, Exhibit 12 - Satanic Temple Responses to Def.'s First Requests April 10, 2020
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Exhibit 14 - MCAD Complaint — Document #100, Attachment #14
- ↑ Flipcause.com, The Satanic Temple vs. Twitter. Support The Satanic Temple's fight against religious discrimination. ($5,649 Raised of $50,000)
- ↑ YouTube.com, High Priest Brian Werner resigns from The Satanic Temple, relevant portion at 6:59 - "I get an email from the lawyers accepting my resignation with an attached six page non-disclosure agreement. Really dude? After everything you and me have been through in the last three years? You've been a guest in several of my homes. You know my wife. I've been a guest in yours. You've embraced me and called me brother. You couldn't even pick up a telephone and tolk to me? You had to hide behind the lawyers. What is this, Scientology?"
- ↑ Twitter.com, @TheSatanicWiki posting The Satanic Temple's National Council Meeting Notes for Sept. 9, 2018. Relevant portion: "Legal letters have been sent to ex-CHs [Chapterheads] who have violated NDA [Non-Disclosure/Non-Disparagement Agreement] / AA [Affiliate Agreement] terms"
- ↑ QueerSatanic.com, “The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple
- ↑ Michael Cassidy, a former congressional and legislative candidate, was set for trial June 3, but his attorney filed a guilty plea on his behalf to an aggravated misdemeanor count of third-degree criminal mischief. DesMoinesRegister.com, May 28, 2024