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

26

27

28

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC and Kezhaya Law PLC

101 E Pennington 1202 NE McClain Rd.

Suite 201 Bentonville, Arkansas 72712

Tucson, Arizona 85701 phone: (479) 431-6112

Telephone: (520) 358-4089 fax: (479) 282-2892

Facsimile: (520) 628-4275 email: matt@kezhaya.law

Stuart P. de Haan, State Bar No. 26664 Matthew A. Kezhaya, phv, Ark. Bar # 2014161

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

THE SATANIC TEMPLE, INC., 

MICHELLE SHORTT, 

UNITED FEDERATION OF CHURCHES,

LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple,”)

ADVERSARIAL TRUTH LLC (dba “The 

Satanic Temple – Arizona Chapter,”) and

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

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, 

Defendant,

 Case No. 18-cv-00621-DGC

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel of record, with an amended complaint 

pursuant to FRCP 15 and the Court’s order (Doc. 55) pertaining to the real parties in interest. 

See also Plaintiffs’ standing memorandum (Doc. 53).

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 1 of 10
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

26

27

28

EXPLANATORY NOTE

1. 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).

2. This amendment also restates the facts pleaded in the original complaint and 

incorporates the Court’s order of partial dismissal: both as to the individual agents of the City 

and as to the State claims.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1343.

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments pursuant to 

28 USC § 2201.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the City.

6. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b).

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

7. The Satanic Temple (“TST”) is a nascent religious organization. See generally “FAQ” 

available at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq (last visited Aug. 30, 2019); see also 

“Tenets” available at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets (last visited Aug. 30, 2019).

8. TST’s organizational mission is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all 

people. See “Our Mission” available at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us (last 

visited Aug. 30, 2019). TST’s function is to actively provide outreach, to lead by example, and 

to participate in public affairs wheresoever the issues might benefit from rational, Satanic 

insights. See “FAQ,” above.

9. TST was recently the subject of a documentary, entitled “Hail Satan?” (2019) (Produced 

by Gabriel Sedgwick and directed by Penny Lane, 2019).

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 2 of 10
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

26

27

28

10. 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.

11. 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.” E.g. S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina, 

762 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing unincorporated associations) and Cooke v. Town of 

Colo. City, No. CV 10-08105-PCT-JAT, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190002 (D. Ariz. Sep. 30, 

2013) (defining unincorporated associations).

12. At the times relevant to this litigation, Michelle Shortt was the chapter head of the 

Arizona Chapter of TST. As will be addressed in greater detail below, Ms. Shortt was 

precluded from inclusion in the City’s otherwise all-comer policy of legislative invocations

because of her religious beliefs. Ms. Shortt sought out participation in the City’s legislative 

invocation in connection with her leadership position.

13. During the pendency of this litigation, Ms. Shortt has stepped down from her formal 

leadership role. Despite stepping down from this capacity, Ms. Shortt is still a self-identified 

Satanist and is formally recognized as a spokesperson for TST. Should the Court grant the 

relief sought in this complaint, Ms. Shortt would be the person to perform the prayer.

14. TST has members throughout Arizona. Some of these members reside in Scottsdale, 

Arizona. The claims asserted in this complaint do not require their participation, nor is their 

attendance necessary for the Court to grant the relief requested.

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 3 of 10
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

26

27

28

Defendant

15. The City of Scottsdale is an Arizona municipal corporation. Scottsdale is located within 

the Court’s district. As will be more adequately detailed below, the City excluded Ms. Shortt 

from participation in an otherwise all-comer policy of legislative invocations because of her

religion.

16. The City is comprised of various offices. Of importance to this litigation, offices 

include without limitation: the City Council, the Mayor, and the City Manager.

17. As a general principle, the City Council is vested with “all powers of the city” which is 

limited only as “imposed by the state constitution and this charter.” See City Charter at Art. 

1 § 2 (available at https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/council/charter) (last visited Aug. 30, 2019); 

see also id. at Art. 2 § 17 (“Whenever, by any provisions of this charter, it is prescribed that 

any power, duty or procedure shall or may be exercised, performed or adopted in the manner 

established by any law of this state, and there be no procedure established by law therefor, 

then the council may prescribe the procedure.”)

18. The City Council has direct supervisory authority over the City Manager. E.g. id. (the 

City Council “shall . . . appoint the city manager”) and Art. 3 § 1 (“The council shall appoint

as officers of the city the following: city manager”) and Art. 3 § 2 (“[T]he city manager shall 

be responsible to the council for the proper administration of all affairs of the city, not 

otherwise assigned by this charter to another officer.”)

19. The Mayor is a voting member on the city council. Charter at Art. 2 §§ 2 and 6.

FACTS

The City’s legislative invocation practice

20. For some time–it is still unclear exactly how long–the City has opened its city council 

meetings with religious invocations. The documents provided through summary judgment 

briefing sheds light on invocations going back to 2008.

21. Prior to July 6, 2016, nearly every participant in this ceremony was Christian. There 

are only two exceptions: Rabbis, religious leaders of the Jewish faith, and Susan Ducot, of the 

Bahá'í faith.

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 4 of 10
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

26

27

28

22. The Bahá'í faith is an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. See 

Lawson, Todd (13 December 2012). Cusack, Carole M.; Hartney, Christopher, eds. “Baha'i 

Religious History.” Journal of Religious History. 36 (4): 463–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

9809.2012.01224.x. ISSN 1467-9809. 

23. Speakers for the legislative prayer ceremony were selected from a list handed down to 

Ms. Kelli Kuester, an administrative employee in the Mayor’s office.

24. At all times relevant to this litigation, no written policy formalized this process. 

Speakers came from the area in and around Scottsdale. Based on the City’s exhibits in support 

of its motion for summary, at least 54 speakers came from outside the city limits of Scottsdale 

prior to Ms. Shortt’s request. Those speakers are more adequately identified on Exhibit 1 and

are subject to distillation to a demonstrative exhibit which is yet to be created.

25. Ms. Kuester’s role in arranging for invocations was to iteratively call individuals on the 

provided list and fill time slots for opening prayers. TST was the only group to proactively 

reach out and seek inclusion in the invocation.

Ms. Shortt’s request

26. On February 8, 2016, Michelle Shortt contacted Ms. Kuester by telephone to request 

placement of TST on the City’s invocation schedule.

27. Ms. Kuester placed TST on the list, as she would have with any other religious 

organization willing to participate.

28. At that time, TST was still being treated as if it were any other religious organization. 

There was no internal investigation into Ms. Shortt, TST, or TST’s connection with Scottsdale. 

Ms. Shortt was not informed of any prerequisites for participation. She was just put on the 

schedule.

29. Later, a scheduling conflict arose, so Ms. Kuester rescheduled Ms. Shortt’s invocation 

for July 6.

30. After the rescheduling, Ms. Kuester informed the City’s chief of staff (her direct 

supervisor) and the Mayor. Each told her that she had done the correct thing, “because I 

needed to treat them the way I would treat any other organization.”

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 5 of 10
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

26

27

28

The political outcry

31. When news of the scheduling became public, one church sent “thousands of emails”

which crashed the City’s servers. In all, the City received about 15,000 emails objecting to 

TST’s equal participation in the ceremony.

32. The members of the City Council took the–correct–impression that the law prohibits 

disparate treatment of TST because of religion; but they didn’t like it. In a February 12 email 

to a voter, City Council member Kathy Littlefield states:

[A]ccording to the Supreme Court’s decision our choice is to 

allow it or discontinue all religious prayers at the beginning of the 

meeting. Personally, I like having the prayers, do NOT want the 

Satanists, and I think this is taking equality too far.

Doc. 1-1 at p. 2.

33. The same sentiment is reflected in a March 22 email from David Smith, another City 

Council member, to a voter:

Please be assured I share your sentiments. I am informed 

permission was given, relying on a Supreme Court opinion that 

this ‘religion’ is protected by the First amendment...an absurd 

notion, even if not surprising. I wish (and intend) my 

deliberations on Council to be blessed and guided by God alone.

Id. at p. 12 (mocking emphasis in original).

34. Suzanne Klapp, another City Council member, publicly stated “I do not welcome a 

Satanist group.” Id. at p. 10. She announced that, if TST were permitted participation, she

intended to leave the meeting. Id. This decision was rooted in her faith. Id. (“My faith tells 

me that this is the only action I can take.”)

35. Councilmember Klapp also indicated that it was time for a rule to be established “about 

who can come and what kind of message is expected.” Id.

The denial

36. Suzanne Klapp “expressed her concern” to the City Manager for the City allowing TST 

to participate in the ceremony. 

37. Following that, the city manager “informed” Ms. Kuester that the City was revoking 

TST’s invitation to participate. The City Manager made his decision to revoke TST’s invitation 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 6 of 10
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

26

27

28

in absence of any investigation and without an opportunity for TST to explain that it had a 

“substantial connection” to Scottsdale. 

38. Ostensibly, the basis of the preclusion was an absence of a “substantial connection to 

the Scottsdale community.” Doc 1-1 at p. 14.

39. No other groups were scrutinized for their “substantial community ties.” Until 

confronted with the fact that several speakers came from outside of Scottsdale, “substantial 

community ties” literally meant “inside Scottsdale city limits,” with the sole exception of the 

Brophy High School, the only Jesuit high school in the area.

40. TST is the only group to have ever been denied participation.

41. It is odd that the direction came from the City Manager because Ms. Kuester did not 

report to the City Manager and was not even in his department. Ms. Kuester reported to the 

Chief of Staff, who reports to the Mayor.

42. It was not the City Manager’s responsibility to schedule invocation participants. As 

explained by Brian Biesemeyer, the City Manager at the time, it was not even the City 

Manager’s departmental function to schedule the speakers. Scheduling participants was done 

“out of the mayor’s office,” which “is separate from my office.” 

43. In his deposition testimony, the City Manager could not enunciate any factors or 

elements of “substantial connection.” Nor could he recite any unique identifier that 

distinguished TST from the permitted participants, other than a perception that TST was only 

in Tucson. TST received special scrutiny because they are “unique.”

44. Ms. Shortt was replaced with a Christian.

The aftermath

45. Following the denial, Mayor Lane took credit for stopping “so called ‘Satanists’ from 

mocking City Hall traditions with a ‘prayer.’” Doc 1-1 at p. 17. As if it were not already 

abundantly clear, Mayor Lane stated the exact reasoning for revoking TST’s invitation:

In Scottsdale we ‘ve decided to keep our traditional invocations

and we’ve decided to send this Satanist sideshow elsewhere . . . 

Some say just let them do a ‘Satanic Prayer’ and walk out. That’s 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 7 of 10
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

26

27

28

not good enough. Rather than walk out, we’re standing up to 

this ridiculing of religion. Some things are worth fighting for. 

Id. at p. 22 (reelection campaign statement from Mayor Lane) (emphasis added). 

46. Much later, the City apparently extended invitations to two new religions, one of which 

came from outside of Scottsdale and the other was Abrahamic (Islam). Doc. 32-6 at p. 70 

(“Phoenix Indian Center,” referring to indigenous Americans), p. 80 (Muslim speaker), and p. 

99 (same).

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1: Establishment Clause violation

47. As explained in Town of Greece, Governments cannot control the contents of 

legislative prayers and cannot, consistent with the Establishment Clause, discriminate among 

religions in the selection of speakers. Id., 572 U.S. at 580 and 585-86.

48. The City discriminated against TST in the selection of its speakers. Despite the City’s

pretextual policy requiring an undefined “substantial connection,” the public statements 

denouncing TST from the City’s highest offices betray the true reason for excluding Ms. Shortt 

from participation. The Churchmembers, Councilmembers, and Mayor all objected to the 

“Satanists;” not the “Tucsonians.”

49. The exclusion of Ms. Shortt from participation in the otherwise all-comer policy was 

“a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political 

community, and an accompanying message to the adherents that they are insiders, favored 

members of the political community.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) 

(O’Connor, J., concurring).

50. The City is liable under 42 USC § 1983 for violating Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause 

rights to be free from religious discrimination in the selection of legislative prayer speakers.

Count 2: Equal Protection Clause violation

51. . The Equal Protection Clause directs that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be

treated alike. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-17, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 2394 (1982).

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 8 of 10
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

26

27

28

52. The Equal Protection Clause presumes acts are unconstitutional if they disadvantage a 

“suspect class.” Id. A suspect class is one historically “relegated to such a position of political 

powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process. 

Id., 457 U.S. at 217, fn. 14. Legislation imposing special disabilities upon groups disfavored 

by virtue of circumstances beyond their control suggests the kind of “class or caste” treatment 

that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to abolish. Id. Religion is a suspect class. 

Ass'n of Christian Sch. Int'l v. Stearns, 362 F. App'x 640, 646 (9th Cir. 2010).

53. Plaintiffs, being adherents of a minority religion, are the quintessential suspect class. 

The majoritarian political process wielded its considerable strength by coordinating a 15,000-

email heckler’s veto to preclude Ms. Shortt’s participation in the legislative prayer. Plaintiffs 

lack the numbers to vindicate their constitutional rights through the representative branches, 

they need the Court’s protection.

54. The City is liable under 42 USC § 1983 for violating Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause 

rights to be free from religious discrimination in the selection of legislative prayer speakers.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter an order as follows:

1. Declare that the City violated the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause 

rights of the Plaintiffs by discriminating against TST in the selection of legislative prayer 

speakers.

2. Enjoin the City, and any person in active concert with the City, from denying TST

participation in the legislative prayer ceremony.

3. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees from the 

City, pursuant to 42 USC § 1988.

4. Award all other relief as the Court finds just, pursuant to FRCP 54(c).

Respectfully submitted on August 30, 2019,

On behalf of Plaintiffs

By /s/ Stuart P. de Haan and /s/ Matthew A. Kezhaya

Stuart P. de Haan, Matthew A. Kezhaya, 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 9 of 10
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

26

27

28

AZ Bar No. 026664 AR Bar No. 2014161 (pro hac vice)

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC

100 N Stone Avenue, Suite 512

Tucson, Arizona 85701

1202 NE McClain Rd

Bentonville AR 72712

phone (520) 358-4089 (479) 431-6112

fax (520) 628-4275 (479) 282-2892

email stu.dehaan@gmail.com matt@kezhaya.law

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 30, 2019 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. 

/s/ Stuart de Haan

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 57 Filed 08/30/19 Page 10 of 10