The Satanic Temple: Difference between revisions

From The Satanic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
m (added H1 header)
(saving progress)
Line 2: Line 2:
* [[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.
* [[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."
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=
=Lawsuits=
==Nonprofit Church Lawsuits==
==Nonprofit Church Lawsuits==
Beginning in 2019, following IRS recognition of "The Satanic Temple" (later changed to "The Satanic Temple Inc.") as a nonprofit church, The Satanic Temple Inc. became the primary legal entity involved in suits involving "The Satanic Temple", including taking over at least one case begun by "United Federation of Churches LLC".
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.


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
Line 14: Line 14:
! scope="col" | Case Name
! scope="col" | Case Name
! scope="col" | Original Jurisdiction
! scope="col" | Original Jurisdiction
!scope="col" | Case Number
! scope="col" | Case Number
!scope="col" | Original Result
! scope="col" | Original Result
!scope="col" | First Appeal
! scope="col" | First Appeal
!scope="col" | Second Appeal
! scope="col" | Second Appeal
! scope="col" | Notes
|-
|-
! scope="row" | 2/05/2021
! scope="row" | 2/5/2021
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al]] || US District Court for the Southern District of Texas ||[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ 4:21-cv-00387] || Ongoing, 2/4 counts dismissed<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/33/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ 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.''</ref>
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al v. Hellerstedt et al]] || US District Court for the Southern District of Texas ||[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ 4:21-cv-00387] || Ongoing
|
|
|''2/4 counts in initial claims dismissed''<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59182019/33/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-hellerstedt/ 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.''</ref>
|-
|-
! scope="row" | 2/04/2021
! scope="row" | 2/4/2021
|[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of| Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of]]  ("Satanic Temple II")|| US District Court for the District of Minnesota ||[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/ 0:2021cv00336] || Dismissed and Sanctioned (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> || Appealed (Ongoing)<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal">[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41883898/The_Satanic_Temple_v_City_of_Belle_Plaine,_et_al 0:21-cv-03079], Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals</ref>
|[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of| Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of]]  ("Satanic Temple II")
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota  
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/ 0:2021cv00336]  
| 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>  
| Ongoing<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal">[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41883898/The_Satanic_Temple_v_City_of_Belle_Plaine,_et_al 0:21-cv-03079], Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals</ref>
|Judge sanctioned TST for filing second suit before first was complete
|
|-
|-
! scope="row" | 1/20/2021
! scope="row" | 1/20/2021
Line 29: Line 39:
|US District Court of Massachusetts - Boston
|US District Court of Massachusetts - Boston
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/31223191/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-city-of-boston/ 1:21-cv-10102]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/31223191/the-satanic-temple-inc-v-city-of-boston/ 1:21-cv-10102]
|Ongoing<ref>[https://www.universalhub.com/2021/satanists-allowed-continue-press-claim-way-city UniversalHub.com], ''Satanists allowed to continue to press claim that the way the City Council picks clergy for invocations is unconstitutional'', July 21, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/37984635/The_Satanic_Temple,_Inc_v_City_of_Boston, 0:21-cv-00336] - Case Filed: Feb 04, 2021</ref>
|ONGOING<ref>[https://www.universalhub.com/2021/satanists-allowed-continue-press-claim-way-city UniversalHub.com], ''Satanists allowed to continue to press claim that the way the City Council picks clergy for invocations is unconstitutional'', July 21, 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/37984635/The_Satanic_Temple,_Inc_v_City_of_Boston, 0:21-cv-00336] - Case Filed: Feb 04, 2021</ref>
|-
|-
! scope="row" | 9/27/2020
! scope="row" | 9/27/2020
Line 37: Line 47:
|Terminated (Unclear)<ref>[https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/cconnect/PROD/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=C&case_id=04CV-20-2100&begin_date=&end_date= 04CV-20-2100] - Case Filed: Sep. 27, 2020; [https://web.archive.org/web/20210520054832/https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS/CK_Image.Present2?DMS_ID=C1520BBC8A01E75D790FB8CBD91388441378F38F4E9F2CA99747DFB43A95B8CBA9AD539D7BA6940D86B479E061824217D0BB406894028B58F7DF3AA8BF973CBD&i_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontexte.aoc.arkansas.gov%2Fimaging%2FIMAGES%2FDMS Terminated]: Feb 26, 2021 via [https://casetext.com/rule/arkansas-court-rules/arkansas-rules-of-civil-procedure/rule-41-dismissal-of-actions#:~:text=Rule%2041%20%2D%20Dismissal%20of%20Actions%20(a)Voluntary%20Dismissal%3B,trial%20is%20by%20the%20court. voluntary dismissal (without prejudice)]</ref><ref>[https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the-satanic-temple-bought-11971116 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.''</ref>
|Terminated (Unclear)<ref>[https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/cconnect/PROD/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=C&case_id=04CV-20-2100&begin_date=&end_date= 04CV-20-2100] - Case Filed: Sep. 27, 2020; [https://web.archive.org/web/20210520054832/https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS/CK_Image.Present2?DMS_ID=C1520BBC8A01E75D790FB8CBD91388441378F38F4E9F2CA99747DFB43A95B8CBA9AD539D7BA6940D86B479E061824217D0BB406894028B58F7DF3AA8BF973CBD&i_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontexte.aoc.arkansas.gov%2Fimaging%2FIMAGES%2FDMS Terminated]: Feb 26, 2021 via [https://casetext.com/rule/arkansas-court-rules/arkansas-rules-of-civil-procedure/rule-41-dismissal-of-actions#:~:text=Rule%2041%20%2D%20Dismissal%20of%20Actions%20(a)Voluntary%20Dismissal%3B,trial%20is%20by%20the%20court. voluntary dismissal (without prejudice)]</ref><ref>[https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the-satanic-temple-bought-11971116 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.''</ref>
|-
|-
! scope="row" | 3/02/2020  
! scope="row" | 3/2/2020  
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. City of Scottsdale]]
|[[The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. City of Scottsdale]]
|US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix
|US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix
Line 43: Line 53:
U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix</ref>
U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix</ref>
|Case begun by [[United Federation of Churches, LLC|UFC LLC]]
|Case begun by [[United Federation of Churches, LLC|UFC LLC]]
|Affirmed (failure)<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fO3ojPSA7I Video of Oral Arguments to 20-15338 The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale]</ref><ref>[https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/05/19/appeals-court-upholds-ruling-blocking-satanist-invocation-in-scottsdale-az/ Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Satanist Invocation in Scottsdale (AZ)], by Hemant Mehta for Friendly Atheist</ref><ref>[https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2021/05/19/20-15338.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision] upholding lower court ruling</ref>
|Affirmed (FAILURE)<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fO3ojPSA7I Video of Oral Arguments to 20-15338 The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale]</ref><ref>[https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/05/19/appeals-court-upholds-ruling-blocking-satanist-invocation-in-scottsdale-az/ Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Satanist Invocation in Scottsdale (AZ)], by Hemant Mehta for Friendly Atheist</ref><ref>[https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2021/05/19/20-15338.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision] upholding lower court ruling</ref>
|-
|-
! scope="row" | 4/25/2019
! scope="row" | 4/25/2019
|[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of|Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of]] ("Satanic Temple I")|| US District Court for the District of Minnesota ||[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15064653/satanic-temple-the-v-belle-plaine-city-of/ 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD] || 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> || Appealed (ongoing)<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal"></ref>   
|[[Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of|Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of]] ("Satanic Temple I")|| US District Court for the District of Minnesota ||[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15064653/satanic-temple-the-v-belle-plaine-city-of/ 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD] || 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> || ONGOING<ref name="Belle Plaine appeal"></ref>   
|}
|}


Line 63: Line 73:
! scope="col" | Case Name
! scope="col" | Case Name
! scope="col" | Original Jurisdiction
! scope="col" | Original Jurisdiction
!scope="col" | Case Number
! scope="col" | Case Number
!scope="col" | Original Result
! scope="col" | Original Result
!scope="col" | First Appeal
! scope="col" | First Appeal
!scope="col" | Second Appeal
! scope="col" | Second Appeal
! scope="col" | Notes
|-
|-
|4/03/2020
|4/3/2020
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al]]
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al]]
|US District Court for the Western District of Washington
|US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Line 75: Line 86:
complaint re-filed[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33342602/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Johnson_et_al]
complaint re-filed[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33342602/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Johnson_et_al]
|-
|-
|11/08/2018
|11/8/2018
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al]]
|[[United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al]]
|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/ 1:2018cv10372]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8152228/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-netflix-inc/ 1:2018cv10372]
|Settled Out of Court (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>
|Settled Out of Court (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>
|-
|-
|5/23/2018
|5/23/2018
Line 85: Line 96:
|US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
|US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7274697/parties/cave-v-thurston/ 4:18-cv-00342]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7274697/parties/cave-v-thurston/ 4:18-cv-00342]
|Ongoing
|ONGOING
|-
|-
|2/28/2018
|2/28/2018
Line 91: Line 102:
|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-HEA]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6322005/doe-v-greitens/ 4:18-cv-00339-HEA]
|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>
|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>
|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://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/19-1578 19-1578], filed 3/20/2019 </ref>
|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://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/19-1578 19-1578], filed 3/20/2019 </ref>
|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>
|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>
|-
|-
|2/26/2018
|2/26/2018
Line 99: Line 110:
|US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix
|US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6726362/satanic-temple-v-scottsdale-city-of/ 2:2018cv00621]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6726362/satanic-temple-v-scottsdale-city-of/ 2:2018cv00621]
|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.''
|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 108: Line 119:
|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/ 4:2015cv00986]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7760360/the-satanic-temple-v-jeremiah-jay-nixon/ 4:2015cv00986]
|Dismissed (failure)
|Dismissed (FAILURE)
|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>
|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>


|-
|-
Line 116: Line 127:
|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]
|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>
|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>
|Appeals Court orders 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>
|Appeals Court orders 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>
|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 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" />
|-
|-
|}
|}
Line 133: Line 144:
! scope="col" | First Appeal
! scope="col" | First Appeal
! scope="col" | Second Appeal
! scope="col" | Second Appeal
! scope="col" | Notes
|-
|-
|9/11/2018
|9/11/2018
Line 138: Line 150:
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7862874/mayle-v-chicago-park-district/ 1:18-cv-06211]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7862874/mayle-v-chicago-park-district/ 1:18-cv-06211]
|Dismissed (failure)<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7862874/64/mayle-v-chicago-park-district/ CourtListener.com], Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction</ref>
|Dismissed (FAILURE)<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7862874/64/mayle-v-chicago-park-district/ CourtListener.com], Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction</ref>
|[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30887949/Kenneth_Mayle_v_City_of_Chicago,_et_al 0:19-cv-03208] Affirmed (failure)
|[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30887949/Kenneth_Mayle_v_City_of_Chicago,_et_al 0:19-cv-03208] Affirmed (FAILURE)
|-
|-
|4/24/2018
|4/24/2018
Line 145: Line 157:
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7373722/mayle-v-the-state-of-illinois/ 1:18-cv-02924]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7373722/mayle-v-the-state-of-illinois/ 1:18-cv-02924]
|Dismissed (failure)<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7373722/22/mayle-v-the-state-of-illinois CourtListener.com], Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction</ref>
|Dismissed (FAILURE)<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7373722/22/mayle-v-the-state-of-illinois CourtListener.com], Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction</ref>
|[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27846458/Kenneth_Mayle_v_State_of_Illinois,_et_al 0:19-cv-01691] Affirmed (failure)
|[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27846458/Kenneth_Mayle_v_State_of_Illinois,_et_al 0:19-cv-01691] Affirmed (FAILURE)
|-
|-
|4/10/2017
|4/10/2017
Line 152: Line 164:
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
|US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13396641/mayle-v-orr/ 1:17-cv-00449]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13396641/mayle-v-orr/ 1:17-cv-00449]
|Dismissed (failure)<ref>[https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170411a06 Leagle.com], Dismissal order</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13396641/39/mayle-v-orr/ Courtlistener.com], Motion for extension to file notice of appeal denied</ref>
|Dismissed (FAILURE)<ref>[https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170411a06 Leagle.com], Dismissal order</ref><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13396641/39/mayle-v-orr/ Courtlistener.com], Motion for extension to file notice of appeal denied</ref>
|-
|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)
|Affirmed (failure)<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-3221/17-3221-2018-05-31.html 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. ''</ref>
|
|Pro se TST Member; Appeal Case# 17-3221
|-
|-
|1/9/2017
|1/9/2017
Line 164: Line 185:
|Third Judicial District Superior Court - Anchorage
|Third Judicial District Superior Court - Anchorage
|[https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/home.page.14 3AN-16-10652CI]
|[https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/home.page.14 3AN-16-10652CI]
|Summary Judgment for Plaintiff (success)<ref> PeninsulaClarion.com, Satanic Temple invocation prompts protest, walkouts at assembly meeting, June 18, 2019></ref>
|Summary Judgment for Plaintiff (SUCCESS)<ref> PeninsulaClarion.com, Satanic Temple invocation prompts protest, walkouts at assembly meeting, June 18, 2019></ref>
|-
|-
|3/24/2015
|3/24/2015
Line 170: Line 191:
|US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
|US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13307466/freedom-from-religion-foundation-inc-v-franklin-county-indiana/ 1:2015cv00484]
|[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13307466/freedom-from-religion-foundation-inc-v-franklin-county-indiana/ 1:2015cv00484]
|Settled Out of Court (success) <ref>[https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/12/21/satanic-temple-lawsuit-over-nativity-scene-dismissed/77693518/ 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''</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210208013949/https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FFRF-v-Franklin-Co-1-15-cv-00484-Fully-Executed-Settlement-Agreement-1.pdf Thomas More Society], Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims</ref><ref>[https://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news/local-news/lawsuit-settlement-in-place-for-satanic-display-at-courthouse/ 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.''</ref>
|Settled Out of Court (SUCCESS) <ref>[https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/12/21/satanic-temple-lawsuit-over-nativity-scene-dismissed/77693518/ 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''</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210208013949/https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FFRF-v-Franklin-Co-1-15-cv-00484-Fully-Executed-Settlement-Agreement-1.pdf Thomas More Society], Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims</ref><ref>[https://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news/local-news/lawsuit-settlement-in-place-for-satanic-display-at-courthouse/ 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.''</ref>
|-
|-
|}
|}

Revision as of 05:17, 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.

The Satanic Temple Inc. Cases
Date Filed Case Name Original Jurisdiction Case Number Original Result First Appeal Second Appeal Notes
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]
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
1/20/2021 The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston US District Court of Massachusetts - Boston 1:21-cv-10102 ONGOING[4][5]
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]
3/2/2020 The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. City of Scottsdale US District Court of Arizona - Phoenix 20-15338[8] Case begun by UFC LLC Affirmed (FAILURE)[9][10][11]
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.

United Federation of Churches LLC Cases
Date Filed Case Name Original Jurisdiction Case Number Original Result First Appeal Second Appeal Notes
4/3/2020 United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al US District Court for the Western District of Washington 2:2020cv00509 Initial dismissal[1][2];

complaint re-filed[3]

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]
5/23/2018 Cave et al v. Thurston ("Doug Misicko" and "Satanic Temple" listed as Intervenors) US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 4:18-cv-00342 ONGOING
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 SCOTUS denied (FAILURE) [22][23][24]
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)[25][26] Case continued by The Satanic Temple Inc
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) [27]
5/11/2015 Mary Doe v. Jeremiah J Nixon et al ("Mary Doe I") Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri 15AC-CC00205 Dismissed (FAILURE) [28] Appeals Court orders transfer (neutral) [29][30] State Supreme Court affirmed (FAILURE) [31][28]

Other Lawsuits

Cases by others involving TST
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)[32] 0:19-cv-03208 Affirmed (FAILURE)
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)[33] 0:19-cv-01691 Affirmed (FAILURE)
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)[34][35]
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) Affirmed (failure)[36] 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)
12/14/2016 Hunt, Lance vs. Kenai Peninsula Borough AP Third Judicial District Superior Court - Anchorage 3AN-16-10652CI Summary Judgment for Plaintiff (SUCCESS)[37]
3/24/2015 Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. et al v. Franklin County, Indiana[38] US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana 1:2015cv00484 Settled Out of Court (SUCCESS) [39][40][41]

References

  1. ↑ 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.
  2. ↑ CourtListener.com, Defendant’s motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 0:21-cv-03079, Case filed: Sept. 16, 2021, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
  4. ↑ UniversalHub.com, Satanists allowed to continue to press claim that the way the City Council picks clergy for invocations is unconstitutional, July 21, 2021
  5. ↑ 0:21-cv-00336 - Case Filed: Feb 04, 2021
  6. ↑ 04CV-20-2100 - Case Filed: Sep. 27, 2020; Terminated: Feb 26, 2021 via voluntary dismissal (without prejudice)
  7. ↑ 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.
  8. ↑ Court of Appeals Docket #20-15338, District Court# 2:18-cv-00621-DGC U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix
  9. ↑ Video of Oral Arguments to 20-15338 The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale
  10. ↑ Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Satanist Invocation in Scottsdale (AZ), by Hemant Mehta for Friendly Atheist
  11. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision upholding lower court ruling
  12. ↑ 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
  13. ↑ 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)
  14. ↑ 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. ↑ 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.
  16. ↑ PacerMonitor.com, United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al
  17. ↑ "The Satanic Temple" was not named in the lawsuit as a plaintiff, but "Judy Doe" used the same attorney, William J. Mac Naughton, arguing a similar case in Missouri's State Supreme Court for "Mary Doe"
  18. ↑ 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.
  19. ↑ 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.
  20. ↑ 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)
  21. ↑ 19-1578, filed 3/20/2019
  22. ↑ 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)
  23. ↑ "Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case", Press release, Nov. 12, 2020
  24. ↑ 20-385, "Certiorari Denied" (PDF)
  25. ↑ 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)
  26. ↑ 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)
  27. ↑ 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
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 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
  29. ↑ 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)
  30. ↑ Planned Parenthood, Satanic Temple score initial wins in abortion fight, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2017
  31. ↑ 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)
  32. ↑ CourtListener.com, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
  33. ↑ CourtListener.com, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
  34. ↑ Leagle.com, Dismissal order
  35. ↑ Courtlistener.com, Motion for extension to file notice of appeal denied
  36. ↑ 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.
  37. ↑ PeninsulaClarion.com, Satanic Temple invocation prompts protest, walkouts at assembly meeting, June 18, 2019>
  38. ↑ 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
  39. ↑ 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
  40. ↑ Thomas More Society, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims
  41. ↑ 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.
Retrieved from "https://the.satanic.wiki/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Temple&oldid=16341"