The Satanic Temple
- 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 representing themselves or when represented by the ACLU.
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|
|Defamation||11/23/2022||Satanic Temple, Inc v. Jessica Snow||261st Civil District Court (Travis County, Texas)||D-1-GN-22-006797||Ongoing||Suit targeting "The Satanic Housewife" for TikTok videos.|
|Abortion||9/30/2022||The Satanic Temple v. Little||US District Court for the District of Idaho||1:22-cv-00411||Ongoing||Complaint largely identical to The Satanic Temple v. Holcolmb (22-1859) except for references to Idaho instead of Indiana.|
|Abortion||9/21/2022||The Satanic Temple v. Holcolmb||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana||1:22-cv-01859||Ongoing||Entity is an assumption as Plaintiff is listed as "The Satanic Temple", rather than "The Satanic Temple, Inc." 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||Ongoing||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||US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit||22-2183||Sanctions imposed||Ongoing||TST lawyer Matthew Kezhaya appealing case 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||Ongoing||TST Inc. withdrew from a previous state-level lawsuit in February 2021. December 2022 dismissal leaves ability to amend and re-file in Arkansas federal court.|
|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||Ongoing||Lawsuit relates to Newsweek's coverage of UFC LLC v. Johnson et al|
|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 ||Ongoing||State-level filing distinct from "Ann Doe I" filed the year before in federal court.|
|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||Ongoing||2/4 counts in initial claims dismissed; case stayed till June 2022, case resumed July 2022|
|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) ||Ongoing ||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 ||TST lawyer Matthew Kezhaya sanctioned for actions related to attempt to depose then-mayoral candidate Michelle Wu on Election Day.|
|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|
|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) ||Ongoing|
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.
The suit was eventually dismissed with prejudice after Netflix agreed to give a copyright credit on all episodes that had been filmed.
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|
|Defamation & Commerce||4/3/2020||United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al||US District Court for the Western District of Washington||2:2020-cv-00509||Dismissed (failed)||Ongoing||Initial claims dismissed; amended complaint re-filed, motion for re-consideration dismissed; motion to dismiss granted; notice of appeal |
|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||Settled Out of Court (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|
|Abortion||2/28/2018||Doe v. Greitens et al ("Judy Doe") ||US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri||4:18-cv-00339||Dismissed (failure) ||Affirmed (failure) ||Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court denied (failure) ||TST had also sought to disqualify new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett|
|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|
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.
|Issue||Date Filed||Case Name||Original Jurisdiction||Case Number||Original Result||First Appeal||Second Appeal||Notes|
|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) ||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) ||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) ||Affirmed (failure) ||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) ||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) ||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) ||Affirmed (success) ||Reversed (failure) ||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||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana||1:2015-cv-00484||Settled Out of Court (success) ||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.
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:
- 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, in their federal lawsuit against the city of Boston, Mass., TST mentioned a fourth such case:
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.  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. However, it was also present as part of the Great Schism of 2018, which involved TST threatening many of them.  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.
"The Satanic Temple" in its own words
|Date||Short Description||Source||Long Description|
|3/24/2015||“an international religious organization”||Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Franklin County, Indiana||The United Federation of Churches LLC d/b/a The Satanic Temple (“The Satanic Temple” or “TST”) is an international religious organization that is incorporated in Massachusetts and has its primary place of business in Somerville, Massachusetts. However, it has several chapters located throughout the United States.|
|6/23/2015||"an association of politically aware Satanists, secularists and advocates for individual liberty"||The Satanic Temple v. Jeremiah Jay Nixon||The Satanic Temple is an association of politically aware Satanists, secularists and advocates for individual liberty.|
|2/16/2018||"has chapters throughout the United States and Europe"||Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale, City of||Plaintiff The Satanic Temple has chapters throughout the United States and Europe with over 50,000 members.|
|2/16/2018||"(DBA of UFC) Religious Organization (applied for 1023) whose members support campaigns based on tenets"||TST Organizational Hierarchy and Structure (internal document)||United Federation of Churches LLC: Registered The Satanic Temple as a trademark...
The Satanic Temple (DBA of UFC): Religious Organization (applied for 1023) whose members support campaigns based on tenets. TST organizational structure outside of EM exists to support chapters and campaigns....
Reason Alliance: Limited Partnership (LTD)...
Sixty Four Bridge LLC: Museum/Gallery property owner...
Salem Art Gallery: DBA for Sixty Four Bridge LLC
SAG is a separate entity owned by Sixty Four Bridge LLC. It is decidedly not a chapter of The Satanic Temple. If it were a chapter, it would need a Chapter Head, Media Liaison and complete governance by NC. It is not in the best interests of 80% of the functions of the building for TST Salem to exist. It seems appropriate for merch, weddings, rituals and other TST initiatives to fall under the governance of EM. These aspects of the building make it TST Headquarters.
For understanding this organizational structure in context, think of the five functions (headquarters, art, museum, venue, media) as separate tenants of SAG. They are all run differently and serve entirely different purposes. Understanding this will help us move forward coherently.
|2/28/2018||"an association of politically aware Satanists, secularists and advocates for individual liberty"||Doe v. Greitens||Plaintiff is a member of The Satanic Temple, an association of politically aware Satanists, secularists and advocates for individual liberty.|
|7/12/2018||"an organized religion"||Cave v. Thurston||The Satanic Temple is an organized religion.|
|11/08/2018||"a Massachusetts limited liability company"||United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc.||Plaintiff, United Federation of Churches LLC d/b/a The Satanic Temple (“Plaintiff” or “TST”)...
Plaintiff TST is a Massachusetts limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 64 Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
|4/25/2019||"a Massachusetts church"||Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of||Plaintiff TST is a Massachusetts church organized under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It holds weekly religious services at its headquarters in Salem, Massachusetts.|
|7/22/2019||"United Federation of Churches, LLC", which is "a tax-exempt organization"||Cave v. Thurston||Intervenors do not object to providing the current full legal name of The Satanic Temple. On information and belief, the full legal name of the organization is still United Federation of Churches, LLC.
The Satanic Temple is a tax-exempt organization. The IRS letter relating to that status will be supplemented at a later time.
|8/12/2019||"a Massachusetts religious corporation" and "a Massachusetts LLC" and "an Arizona LLC"||Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale, City of||The Court directed Plaintiffs to “file a short memorandum with the Court that explains what their intent is with respect to having the real party in interest appear in the case.” Doc. 48.
Plaintiffs intend to join the following entities: The Satanic Temple, Inc., a Massachusetts religious corporation, The United Federation of Churches LLC, a Massachusetts LLC, dba “The Satanic Temple” and Adversarial Truth LLC, an Arizona LLC, dba “The Satanic Temple (Arizona Chapter).” For brevity, “The Satanic Temple” is shortened to its common moniker, “TST,” and interchangeably refers to both LLCs and the corporation.
TST, both as the local Arizona chapter and the national organization, must separately prove their standing. The three entities are functionally interchangeable because they are associations of Satanists. For ease of reading, all are treated here.
The three entities interchangeably referred to as “TST” are interrelated. Adversarial Truth LLC is the Arizona Chapter of The Satanic Temple. Michelle Shortt is the sole owner of Adversarial Truth LLC.
United Federation of Churches, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple”) is the predecessor entity to The Satanic Temple, Inc. United Federation of Churches is owned by two individuals residing in Massachusetts. This entity was in existence at the time of the events in question.
The Satanic Temple, Inc. is an IRS-recognized “church,” complete with a 501(c)(3) ruling letter. Being a nonprofit corporation, The Satanic Temple, Inc., does not have “shareholders” as much as it had “organizers.” This entity was formed after the events in question.
|9/26/2019||"a Massachusetts non-profit corporation"||Cave v. Thurston||TST is given corporate structure by “The Satanic Temple, Inc.” which is a Massachusetts non-profit corporation. To the extent the request seeks to discover information about members and agents of TST, the request is not proportional to the needs of the case because TST is a complex and international organization with local chapters dispersed throughout the world and whose leadership structure is in constant flux. The current membership of TST exceeds 50,000 individuals, many of whom participate in a leadership role for various charitable and religious activities.
Compounding the difficulty of adhering to the request, individual participants of TST very often have pseudonyms to protect their safety. The volume of information sought is overwhelming and has no passable bearing on the questions of this case.
Not only is the information sought onerous to procure in the first place, Rule 26 requires ongoing supplementation. Every time a volunteer steps down from–or steps up to–a leadership position would require a new supplement.
The IRS letter was produced on September 5.
|8/30/2019||"a nascent religious organization"||Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale, City of||THE SATANIC TEMPLE, a voluntary group of persons, without an Arizona charter, formed by mutual consent for the purpose of promoting a common enterprise or prosecuting a common objective
Principally, this amendment adds the various juristic bodies which, at various times, have given an organizational structure to the voluntary association of self-identified Satanists practicing under the moniker “The Satanic Temple.” Because their shared religious beliefs transcend the corporate form, and as a fallback should the Court find a fatal deficiency for any or each of the organizations, “The Satanic Temple” is reserved as an unincorporated association under Rule 17(b)(3)(A).
The Satanic Temple (“TST”) is a nascent religious organization.
TST is organizationally complex. On the international scale, TST is given structure through The Satanic Temple, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation. The Satanic Temple, Inc. has been formally recognized as a tax-exempt religious organization under IRC § 501(c)(3). At the times relevant to this litigation, TST was given structure through United Federation of Churches, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple,”) a Massachusetts LLC.
On the local scale, TST is given structure through local chapters. Sometimes, but not always, a local chapter organizes into a formal entity. Currently, the Arizona Chapter is given structure through Adversarial Truth, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple – Arizona Chapter.”) At the relevant times of this litigation, the Arizona Chapter was simply “a voluntary group of persons, without an Arizona charter, formed by mutual consent for the purpose of promoting a common enterprise or prosecuting a common objective.”
|3/10/2020||"a tax-exempt religious organization" that "can also engage in for-profit commerce"||Cave v. Thurston||Q. Okay. So which -- which organization is the Intervenor, The Satanic Temple, in this litigation?
A. It's The Satanic Temple.
Q. Okay. The Satanic Temple, Inc.?
A. To me the Intervenor is The Satanic Temple as a religious organization. This kind of paperwork is meant to justify different facets sometimes of The Satanic Temple. But to me it's all this larger religious body, this -- this organization of -- of The Satanic Temple.
I don't even see those things as under any type of umbrella. These are -- and, you know, things like Reason Alliance and the United Federation of Churches are completely different to me than something like Cinephobia; because Cinephobia is representative of another project within The Satanic Temple. United Federation of Churches, Reason Alliance where more things, entities that emerged from consultation with either accountants or lawyers meant to help us better manage The Satanic Temple. But to me The Satanic Temple has always been this kind of one thing.
Q. So and I'm -- I'm trying to understand how you understand this to work. So you claim that The Satanic Temple is tax exempt?
A. No. It demonstrably is.
Q. Okay. But when you talk about The Satanic Temple that includes organizations that are for profit and not tax exempt; right? You see the struggle I'm having?
A. I -- I don't -- I don't see that as being -- I mean, I see plenty of religious organizations that operate in the same -- same manner, so it's not something to me that makes me think that this is something untoward or something questionable. ... there is a tax exempt religious organization of The Satanic Temple; but it can also engage in for-profit commerce, a online Web store or whatever else. And, you know, my understanding of it is that this is how you do those things, how you do those various things.
|4/03/2020||"a religious organization"||United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson||Plaintiff United Federation of Churches, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple”) (abbreviated as “TST”)...
TST is a religious organization.
|4/10/2020||"not a discrete entity with tax returns"||Cave v. Thurston||TST’s objection was sustained except to the extent TST was ordered “the Satanic Temple to produce current bylaws, operating agreements, or analogous documents.” Order at p. 20 (emphasis in original). The order directs TST to confer with all parties for a reasonable protective order. Intervenors propose an attorney’s-eyes-only protective order with an obligation to delete the information following the entry of a final order, and all filings marked “confidential” and filed under seal.
“The Satanic Temple” is not a discrete entity with tax returns. Intervenors thus have no responsive documents.
|9/27/2020||"an IRS-recognized atheistic religious organization"||The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Advertising of Louisiana, LLC||Plaintiff The Satanic Temple, Inc. (“TST”)...
TST, plaintiff, is an IRS-recognized atheistic religious organization with membership exceeding 100,000 and which was recently the subject of the film, “Hail Satan?”... TST’s membership can be found in every state, importantly to include Arkansas and Indiana, and internationally.
|1/24/2021||"an infamous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts"||The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston||The Satanic Temple, Inc., plaintiff, (abbreviated to “TST”) is an infamous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST’s membership exceeds 270,000 and was recently the subject of the acclaimed film, “Hail Satan?” ...TST’s membership can be found in every state, importantly to include the Boston metro area.|
|2/04/2021||"an IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts"||Satanic Temple, Inc., The v. City of Belle Plaine, MN||The Satanic Temple, Inc., plaintiff, (abbreviated to “TST”) is an IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. TST’s membership exceeds 200,000 and was recently the subject of the film, “Hail Satan?” ... TST’s membership can be found in every state, importantly to include Minnesota.|
|2/05/2021||"a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts"||The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Hellerstedt||The Satanic Temple, Inc., plaintiff, (abbreviated to “TST”) is a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST’s membership exceeds 270,000 and was recently the subject of the acclaimed film, “Hail Satan?”... TST’s membership can be found in every state, including Texas.|
|3/29/2021||"a religious organization"||United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson||Plaintiff United Federation of Churches (dba “The Satanic Temple” (abbreviated “TST”)...
TST is a religious organization.
|5/24/2021||“a religious organization”||United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson||Plaintiff United Federation of Churches (dba “The Satanic Temple” (abbreviated “TST”)…
… TST is a religious organization.
|11/03/2021||"an atheistic religious corporation"||St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. Baltimore et al.
|The Satanic Temple, Inc. (“TST”) is an atheistic religious corporation with membership exceeding 530,000 throughout all 50 States and internationally.|
|1/03/2022||"an umbrella term for a religion"||Cave v. Thurston||“The Satanic Temple” is an umbrella term for a religion which is given legal structure by a constellation of affiliate entities. There is no entity named “The Satanic Temple” anymore because the errantly-named “The Satanic Temple” corrected its name to “The Satanic Temple, Inc.” See EXHIBIT 1 (articles of amendment, dated May 24, 2019, renaming the organization from “The Satanic Temple” to “The Satanic Temple, Inc.”)|
|1/31/2021||"a nonprofit religious corporation with no parent corporations"||The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, et al
|Plaintiff-Appellant The Satanic Temple, Inc. is a nonprofit religious corporation with no parent corporations and no publicly held corporations own 10% or more of Plaintiff-Appellant’s stock. As a nonprofit religious corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant has neither stock nor owners.|
|2/01/2022||"a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation "||The Satanic Temple, Inc., et al v. Young et al||The Satanic Temple, Inc., plaintiff, (“TST”) is a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST’s membership exceeds 560,000 and was recently the subject of the acclaimed film, “Hail Satan?” ... TST’s membership can be found in every state, including Texas.|
|2/16/2022||"an IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation which is organized" and "a private figure"||The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC||The Satanic Temple, Inc. (“TST”), Plaintiff, is an IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation which is organized under the laws of Massachusetts and is headquartered in Salem, Massachusetts.
TST is a private figure. TST is a private figure because it is not a household name.
|2/25/2022||"a Massachusetts religious corporation" and "a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious organization"||The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation||The Satanic Temple, Inc. (“TST,”) plaintiff, is a Massachusetts religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST is a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious organization with an international following exceeding 540,000 and which was recently the subject of the film, Hail Satan? ... TST’s membership can be found in every State, importantly to include Arkansas and Indiana.|
|9/21/2022||"a religious association"||The Satanic Temple v. Holcomb||Plaintiff The Satanic Temple (“TST”) ... is a religious association with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST has over 1.5 million members worldwide, including over 11,300 members in Indiana.|
|9/30/2022||"a religious association"||The Satanic Temple v. Little (1:22-cv-00411)||Plaintiff The Satanic Temple (“TST”) ... is a religious association with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST has over 1.5 million members worldwide, including over 3,500 members in Idaho.|
|11/23/2022||"a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation"||The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Jessica Snow||The Satanic Temple, Inc., plaintiff, (“TST”) is a famous IRS-recognized atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST’s membership exceeds 560,000 and was recently the subject of the acclaimed film, “Hail Satan?”... TST’s membership can be found in every state, including Texas.|
|12/05/2022||"a nontheistic religion whose membership openly defies the authority of God and the Church"||Satanic Temple v. TX Hlth and Human Svc (22-20459)||The Satanic Temple, Inc. (“TST”) is a nontheistic religion whose membership openly defies the authority of God and the Church. ROA.23. To the congregants of TST, Satan deserves veneration as a revolutionary antihero who stood up against impossible odds to seek justice and egalitarianism for himself and others.|
- ↑ QueerSatanic.com, “The Satanic Housewife” videos and legal threat by The Satanic Temple
- ↑ Matthew Kezhaya is listed as "Movant - Appellant" with "The Satanic Temple Inc." as Plaintiff and renamed after case was initially mistakenly captioned
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Name possibly inaccurate, comes from Complaint. Case number also appears as evidence in unrelated case complaining about Travis County District Court speed.
- ↑ 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, Dec. 20, 2021, This matter is STAYED pending ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No 19-1392.
- ↑ CourtListener.com, Defendant’s motion for sanctions in Satanic Temple II, No. 21-cv-0336, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 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, 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
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 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)
- ↑ 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  [16-3387] (AMT) [Entered: 08/28/2018 07:49 AM], US Eighth Circuit of Appeals
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 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:
- ↑ 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, The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston, Complaint ¶ 43 - "On October 17, 2018, TST raised a claim of discrimination in a place of “public accommodation” to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD.”)
- ↑ 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