The Satanic Temple: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Nonprofit Church Lawsuits: added "issues" column) |
(→For-Profit Corporation Lawsuits: added issues column) |
||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
|+ style="text-align: left;" | United Federation of Churches LLC Cases | |+ style="text-align: left;" | United Federation of Churches LLC Cases | ||
|- | |- | ||
! scope="col" | Issue | |||
! scope="col" | Date Filed | ! scope="col" | Date Filed | ||
! scope="col" | Case Name | ! scope="col" | Case Name | ||
| Line 94: | Line 95: | ||
! scope="col" | Notes | ! scope="col" | Notes | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Intellectual Property | |||
|4/3/2020 | |4/3/2020 | ||
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al]] | |[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al]] | ||
| Line 103: | Line 105: | ||
|''Initial claims dismissal[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]'' | |''Initial claims dismissal[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]'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Intellectual Property | |||
|11/8/2018 | |11/8/2018 | ||
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al]] | |[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al]] | ||
| Line 112: | Line 115: | ||
|''TST utilized outside law firm D'agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman LLP'' | |''TST utilized outside law firm D'agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman LLP'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Public monuments | |||
|5/23/2018 | |5/23/2018 | ||
|[[Cave et al v. Thurston]] | |[[Cave et al v. Thurston]] | ||
| Line 121: | Line 125: | ||
|''"Doug Misicko" and "Satanic Temple" listed as Intervenors'' | |''"Doug Misicko" and "Satanic Temple" listed as Intervenors'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Abortion | |||
|2/28/2018 | |2/28/2018 | ||
|[[Doe v. Greitens et al]] ("Judy Doe")<ref>"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"</ref> | |[[Doe v. Greitens et al]] ("Judy Doe")<ref>"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"</ref> | ||
| Line 131: | Line 136: | ||
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> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Invocations | |||
|2/26/2018 | |2/26/2018 | ||
|[[Satanic Temple et al v. Scottsdale, City of et al]] | |[[Satanic Temple et al v. Scottsdale, City of et al]] | ||
| Line 142: | Line 148: | ||
|''Case continued by [[The Satanic Temple Inc]] '' | |''Case continued by [[The Satanic Temple Inc]] '' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Abortion | |||
|6/23/2015 | |6/23/2015 | ||
|[[The Satanic Temple et al v. Jeremiah Jay Nixon et al.]] ("Mary Doe II") | |[[The Satanic Temple et al v. Jeremiah Jay Nixon et al.]] ("Mary Doe II") | ||
| Line 151: | Line 158: | ||
|''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'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Abortion | |||
|5/11/2015 | |5/11/2015 | ||
|[[Mary Doe v. Jeremiah J Nixon et al]] ("Mary Doe I") | |[[Mary Doe v. Jeremiah J Nixon et al]] ("Mary Doe I") | ||
Revision as of 20:35, 15 December 2021
- 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 achieve 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 reprementing 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abortion | 2/5/2021 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al | US District Court for the Southern District of Texas | 4:21-cv-00387 | Ongoing | 2/4 counts in initial claims dismissed[1] | ||
| Public monuments | 2/4/2021 | Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple II") | US District Court for the District of Minnesota | 0:2021cv00336 | Dismissed (failure)[2] | Ongoing[3] | 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 | Ongoing[4][5] | |||
| Other | 9/27/2020 | The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Advertising of Louisiana, LLC | 19th West Circuit Court 5 (Benton County, Ark.) | 04CV-20-2100 | Terminated (Unclear)[6][7] | 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 - Ninth Circuit | 20-15338[8] | - | Affirmed (failure)[9][10][11] | Case begun by UFC LLC | |
| 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-WMW-JFD | Dismissed (failure)[12][13] | Ongoing[3] |
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.[14]
The suit was eventually dismissed with prejudice after Netflix agreed to give a copyright credit on all episodes that had been filmed.[15]
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intellectual Property | 4/3/2020 | United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al | US District Court for the Western District of Washington | 2:2020cv00509 | Ongoing | Initial claims dismissal[1][2]; amended complaint re-filed[3] | ||
| Intellectual Property | 11/8/2018 | United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al | US District Court for the Southern District of New York | 1:2018cv10372 | Settled Out of Court (Success)[15][16] | TST utilized outside law firm D'agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman LLP | ||
| Public monuments | 5/23/2018 | 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 | ||
| Abortion | 2/28/2018 | Doe v. Greitens et al ("Judy Doe")[17] | US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri | 4:18-cv-00339-HEA | Dismissed (failure) [18] | Affirmed (failure) [19][20][21] | Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court denied (failure) [22][23][24] | TST's petition for a writ of certiorari unsuccessfully sought to disqualify new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett[25][26] |
| Invocations | 2/26/2018 | Satanic Temple et al v. Scottsdale, City of et al | US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix | 2:2018cv00621 | Judgment in favor of Defendants (failure)[27][28] | 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 | 4:2015cv00986 | Dismissed (failure) | Affirmed (failure) [29] | 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) [30] | State Appeals Court ordered transfer (neutral) [31][32] | State Supreme Court affirmed (failure) [33][30] | State supreme court upheld lower court decision unanimously, but two of seven justices had concurring opinion |
Other Lawsuits
| Date Filed | Case Name | Original Jurisdiction | Case Number | Original Result | First Appeal | Second Appeal | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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)[34][35] | Affirmed (failure) | Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 0:19-cv-03208 | |
| 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)[36] | Affirmed (failure) | Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 0:19-cv-01691 | |
| 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)[37][38] | Pro se TST Member; intended appeal failed due to Plaintiff msising filing deadline | ||
| 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)[39] | Affirmed (failure)[40] | Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 17-3221 | |
| 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 | ||
| 12/14/2016 | Hunt, Lance vs. Kenai Peninsula Borough AP | Third Judicial District Superior Court - Anchorage | 3AN-16-10652CI | Summary Judgment for Plaintiff (success)[41] | ACLU representing a TST member | ||
| 3/24/2015 | Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. et al v. Franklin County, Indiana[42] | US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana | 1:2015cv00484 | Settled Out of Court (success) [43][44][45] | ACLU representing United Federation of Churches LLC |
References
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Aug. 6th, 2021, Plaintiffs The Satanic Temple, Inc and Ann Doe withdrew their claims asserted under Count 2 as to the Equal Protection Clause. They also noted no objection to the dismissal of their claims under Count 4 as to the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Counts 2 and 4 were DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Without objection, Texas HHSC was DISMISSED from this action because the TRFRA was the only claim asserted against it.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Defendant’s motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 0:21-cv-03079, Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
- ↑ UniversalHub.com, Satanists allowed to continue to press claim that the way the City Council picks clergy for invocations is unconstitutional, July 21, 2021
- ↑ 0:21-cv-00336 - Case Filed: Feb 04, 2021
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Court of Appeals Docket #20-15338, District Court# 2:18-cv-00621-DGC U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 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.
- ↑ PacerMonitor.com, United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al
- ↑ "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)
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 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)
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Leagle.com, Dismissal order
- ↑ Courtlistener.com, Motion for extension to file notice of appeal denied
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ PeninsulaClarion.com, Satanic Temple invocation prompts protest, walkouts at assembly meeting, June 18, 2019>
- ↑ 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.