-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC

100 N Stone Ave.

Suite 512

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: (520) 358-4089

Facsimile: (520) 628-4275

Stuart P. de Haan, State Bar No. 26664

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Satanic Temple and Michelle Shortt

Plaintiffs,

vs.

City of Scottsdale, Arizona, by its City 

Council, consisting of the Mayor and council 

members, WJ Jim Layne, Suzanne Klapp, 

Virginia Korte, Kathy Littlefield, Guy Phillips, 

David Smith

Defendants,

 Case No._______

 Complaint 

 (Injunctive Relief Sought)

COMPLAINT

Seeking to protect their individual civil liberties and constitutional rights, the plaintiffs 

identified above (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), as their complaint against the City of Scottsdale, 

Arizona (the “City”), by its City Council (the “Council”) (consisting of its Mayor, W.J. “Jim” 

Lane, and council members Suzanne Klapp, Virginia Korte, Kathy Littlefield, Guy Phillips, and 

David Smith), each herein referred to collectively as the “Defendants”, allege as follows:
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NATURE OF THE CLAIMS

1. This action arises out of the City’s practice of regularly opening public Council 

meetings with official invocations that are open to any religious denomination that 

requests it.

2. The Satanic Temple and its agent Michelle Shortt were denied an opportunity to give 

an invocation after prior approval. 

3. In their stead, another invocation was given on the day they were scheduled.

4. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against Defendants to redress these Establishment Clause violations, together 

with recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This case arises under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 

and presents a federal question within this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

1331 and 1343(a)(3). The court has authority to issue a declaratory judgment under 

28 U.S.C. 2201 and to provide injunctive relief and award damages under 28 U.S.C. 

1343 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

6. Venue is proper within this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because 

events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Michelle Shortt has been a resident of the State of Arizona since 1998. She 

has an Associate’s of Applied Science degree in mortuary science and is self-
-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

employed as a professional model. She has been a self-identified Satanist since age 14 

and a member of The Satanic Temple since its inception. 

8. Plaintiff The Satanic Temple has chapters throughout the United States and Europe 

with over 50,000 members.

9. The mission of The Satanic Temple is as follows: “to encourage benevolence and 

empathy among all people. In addition, we embrace practical common sense and 

justice. As an organized religion, we feel it is our function to actively provide 

outreach, to lead by example, and to participate in public affairs wheresoever the 

issues might benefit from rational, Satanic insights. As Satanists, we all should be 

guided by our consciences to undertake noble pursuits guided by our individual wills. 

We believe that this is the hope of all mankind and the highest aspiration of 

humanity.”

10. The Plaintiffs consider the sectarian invocations divisive and exclusionary, leaving 

them to conclude they are unwelcome at City Council meetings and political outsiders 

in their own State.

11. Plaintiff Michelle Shortt objects to the exclusionary sectarian invocation on religious 

grounds. As a practicing Satanist, she believes the sectarian invocations violate her 

First Amendment rights to religious liberty by advancing particular religions while 

excluding her own. 

12. Defendant The City of Scottsdale is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. 

The City Council is a legislative body and is composed of the elected Council 

members.

13. Each of the City Council members acted under the color of law and are sued in his or 

her official capacity.
-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FACTS

14. The facts alleged as to the parties stated above are incorporated herein by reference.

15. The City Council meets in open session on average more than once a month. Its 

meetings are open to the public and are a primary means for State citizens to observe 

and participate in the business of local government.

16. Council meetings are broadcast on local television and video recordings are posted on 

the Council’s website. 

17. It is the Council’s practice to open every public general session Council meeting by 

leading the audience with an official prayer, delivered by a member of a church. 

These invocations occur on a rotating basis.

18. The prayers delivered by the public are frequently Christian in nature, making express 

sectarian references, such as to Jesus Christ.

19. A review of the invocations during 2008 through 2016 reveal that every invocation 

given was of the Judeo-Christian faith.

20. During this eight-year period, none of the official invocations delivered by the public 

mentioned non-Christian deities or used non-Christian language.

21. On February 8, 2016, a member of The Satanic Temple requested that representative 

Plaintiff Shortt give the invocation.

22. This request was made by a phone call to the Management Assistant to Mayor & City 

Council, pursuant to the standard policies.
-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23. On February 11, 2016, Defendant Kathy Littlefield sent responses to constituents 

stating that while she likes having the prayers, she does “NOT want the Satanists” 

and considers allowing them to speak “taking equality too far.” A true and accurate

copy of this correspondence is attached herein as (Exhibit 1) 

24. The Management Assistant scheduled Plaintiff Shortt to give the invocation for April 

5, 2016. 

25. There was no application process or inquiries as to location or community ties for 

invocations.

26. On February 23, 2016, a follow up email was sent to the Management Assistant 

requesting a date change due to logistical reasons. (Exhibit 2).

27. The next day, on February 24, 2016, the Management Assistant responded to the 

request and offered Plaintiff Shortt a date to speak on either July 5 or 6, 2016.

(Exhibit 3).

28. Plaintiff Shortt was rescheduled to give the invocation on behalf of The Satanic 

Temple on July 6, 2016.

29. Immediately after the rescheduling on March 14

th

, 2016, the Management Assistant to 

the Mayor and City Council sent a message to the Council stating that, “After they 

scheduled, we reached out to everyone on our list of faith leaders to try to book as 

many dates as possible. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to secure someone else to 

commit to the invocation on July 6th.” (Exhibit 4)

30. On March 16, 2016, Defendant Suzanne Klapp made a public statement announcing 

that she intended on leaving the meeting if The Satanic Temple were to give an 

invocation and that there is “no current rule to the invocation.” Klapp further stated

that, “it’s time to make it clear that a rule must be established about who can come 

and what kind of message is expected.” (Exhibit 5)
-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31. On March 22, 2016, Defendant David Smith stated to constituents that he 

acknowledged Satanism was protected by the First Amendment but that this is 

“absurd” and that his intent is that his deliberations on the council be “guided by God 

alone.” (Exhibit 6)

32. On May 23, 2016, an email was sent to The Satanic Temple that read, “The City 

Manager has asked me to inform you that he has decided that the City is not going to 

deviate from its long standing practice of having the invocation given only by 

representatives from institutions that have a substantial connection to the Scottsdale 

community. Therefore we are making other arrangements for the invocation to be 

given on July 6th.” (Exhibit 7)

33. Plaintiff Shorrt was replaced by Student Pastor Joshua Newton, First Southern Baptist 

Church of Scottsdale as the deliverer of the invocation.

34. The Satanic Temple invocation to be given by Plaintiff Shortt did not occur. 

35. The Mayor of Scottsdale, Defendant Jim Lane, then used this incident as a mayoral 

“accomplishment” in his reelection website. (Exhibit 8)

36. Stating that The Satanic Temple “demanded” to give an invocation in Scottsdale, 

Defendant Jim Lane boasted that “In Scottsdale we’ve decided to keep our traditional 

invocations and we’ve decided to send this Satanist sideshow elsewhere.” (Exhibit 9

with transcription of text)

37. Defendant Mayor Lane unilaterally imposed the rule that, “only institutions with a 

substantial connection to the Scottsdale community will be allowed to give 

invocations.”

38. At no time in the application process were groups asked what substantial community 

ties existed.
-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39. Mayor Lane stated that “these invocations celebrate our diversity, as we have heard 

respectful and thoughtful messages from Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, 

Hindus and countless other faiths.”

40. At no time have members of the Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu faith given an 

invocation before the Scottsdale City Council. 

41. In an election pamphlet, Mayor Lane listed that he “stopped so-called ‘Satanists’ 

from mocking City Hall traditions with a ‘prayer’.”

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1 – Establishment Clause Violation

42. All preceding allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 

43. The Defendants’ established practice of permitting regular official sectarian 

invocations to open City Council meetings while denying The Satanic Temple the 

same right is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution.

Count 2 – Equal Protection Violation

44. Defendants’ preference of certain religious denominations and discrimination against 

the Satanic Temple is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States 

Constitution.
-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Count 3 – Arizona Religious Tolerance Violation

45. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s request violated Toleration of Religious Sentiment 

Clause of the Arizona Constitution. Ariz. Const. art. XX §1

Count 4 – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

46. The Defendants acted under color of statute law in violating the First Amendment as 

described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Plaintiffs demand that this court grant the following relief

1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ (i) categorical exclusion of minority

religions from the invocation prayer practice and (ii) specific denial of The Satanic 

Temple’s invocation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the 

United States Constitution.

2. An injunction enjoining the Defendants, their successors, and any person in active 

concert with the Defendants from knowingly, intentionally, or negligently denying nonChristian religious groups the opportunity to give opening invocation.

3. In the alternative, an injunction enjoining the Defendants, their successors, and any 

person in active concert with the Defendants prohibiting invocations before Scottsdale 

City Council meetings.

4. A judgement in the Plaintiffs’ favor for nominal damages;
-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5. An award to the Plaintiffs of their reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as 

allowed by law from Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

6. An award of such other and further relief as the court shall deem just.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23

rd

day of February, 2018

s/ Stuart P. de Haan

Stuart P. de Haan

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

Stuart de Haan

The Satanic Temple

100 N Stone Ave.

Suite 512

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: (520) 358-4089

Facsimile: (520) 628-4275
-10-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 23rd day of February, 2018 I electronically transmitted this 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice 

of Electronic Filing to the appropriate CM/ECF registrants. 

Stuart de Haan

Attorney for Plaintiff