18-cv-00621 – statement of material facts supporting plaintiffs’ response Page 1 of 6

1 de Haan Law Firm, PLLC

2 101 E Pennington

3 Suite 201

4 Tucson, Arizona 85701

5 Telephone: (520) 358-4089

6 Facsimile: (520) 628-4275

7 Stuart P. de Haan, State Bar No. 26664

8 Attorney for Plaintiff

9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michelle Shortt and The Satanic Temple

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

City of Scottsdale, 

Defendant,

 Case No. 18-cv-00621-DGC___

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE AND 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11 Background

12 The invocations

13 1. For some time–it is unclear how long–the City of Scottsdale has opened its city council 

14 meetings with religious invocations. Exhibit 1 (deposition of Kelli Kuester) at 6:8; see also 

15 Exhibit 3 (deposition of Brian Biesemeyer) at 11:1 – 11:2; City’s motion at Exhibit 5 (the 

16 earliest record is dated January 8, 2013).

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 33-4 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 6
18-cv-00621 – statement of material facts supporting plaintiffs’ response Page 2 of 6

1 2. Prior to July 6, 2016, nearly every participant in this ceremony was Christian. See City’s 

2 motion at Exhibit 5, pp. 1-65. There are only two exceptions: Rabbis, religious leaders of the 

3 Jewish faith, and Susan Ducot, of the Bahá'í faith. City’s motion at Exhibit 5, pp. 27, 42, 48, 

4 54, and 62 (Rabbis); and p. 11 (Ms. Ducot).

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

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

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

8 9809.2012.01224.x. ISSN 1467-9809. 

9 4. The speakers were selected by invitation from a list handed down to city administrative 

10 employee, Kelli Kuester. Id. at 7:13. At all relevant times, no written policy formalized this 

11 process. Id. at 8:15-8:21. Speakers came from the area in and around Scottsdale. City’s 

12 motion at Exhibit 3. At least 38 speakers came from outside the city limits of Scottsdale. Id.

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

14 list and fill time slots for opening prayers. Id. at 7:2-7:8. The Satanic Temple (“TST”) was 

15 the only group to proactively reach out and seek inclusion in the invocation. Id. at 10:6-10:15.

16 About TST

17 6. The Satanic Temple is a nascent religious organization. See generally “FAQ” available 

18 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq (last visited March 27, 2019); see also “Tenets” 

19 available at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets (last visited March 27, 2019). 

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

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

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 33-4 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 6
18-cv-00621 – statement of material facts supporting plaintiffs’ response Page 3 of 6

1 visited March 27, 2019). TST’s function is to actively provide outreach, to lead by example, 

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

3 insights. See “FAQ,” above.

4 The request

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

6 placement of TST on the City’s invocation schedule. Id. at 11:23-12:3;see also Exhibit 2

7 (affidavit of Ms. Shortt). Ms. Shortt is a member of TST. Id. Ms. Kuester placed TST on 

8 the list, as she would have with any other religious organization willing to participate. Exhibit 

9 1 (deposition of Ms. Kuester) at 11:17-19. 

10 9. At that time, TST was being treated as if it were any other religious organization. Id. 

11 There was no investigation into TST. Id. at 10:16-10:23. No questions were asked about 

12 TST’s connection with Scottsdale. Id. No baseline requirements for participation was 

13 conveyed. See id.; Exhibit 2.

14 10. Later, a scheduling conflict arose with TST, so the parties rescheduled for July 6. Id.

15 at 12:1-12:3 and 14:23-15:1. Ms. Kuester informed the City’s chief of staff (her direct 

16 supervisor) and the City’s mayor. Id. at 12:21-12:25. Each told her that she had done the 

17 correct thing, “because I needed to treat them the way I would treat any other organization.” 

18 Id. 12:9-12:11.

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 33-4 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 6
18-cv-00621 – statement of material facts supporting plaintiffs’ response Page 4 of 6

1 The political outcry

2 11. The members of the City Council took the same–correct–impression that the law 

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

4 12 email to a voter, City Council member Kathy Littlefield states:

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

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

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

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

9 Doc. 1-1 at p. 2.

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

11 Council member, to a voter:

12 Please be assured I share your sentiments. I am informed 

13 permission was given, relying on a Supreme Court opinion that 

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

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

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

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

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

19 Satanist group.” Id. at p. 10 . The was based on her faith. Id. (“My faith tells me that this is 

20 the only action I can take.”)

21 The denial

22 14. Suzanne Klapp “expressed her concern” to the city manager for the City allowing TST 

23 to participate in the ceremony. Exhibit 3 (deposition of Mr. Biesemeyer, the city manager) at 

24 13:14-14-9. The city manager made his decision to revoke TST’s invitation in absence of any 

25 investigation. Id. at 8:7-9:10. 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 33-4 Filed 03/29/19 Page 4 of 6
18-cv-00621 – statement of material facts supporting plaintiffs’ response Page 5 of 6

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

2 TST’s invitation to participate. Exhibit 1 (deposition of Ms. Kuester) at 18:23-19:19. The 

3 city manager “directed” Ms. Kuester to notify TST that they were being denied participation. 

4 Exhibit 3 (deposition of Mr. Biesemeyer, the city manager) at 15:4-15:6. TST is the only 

5 group to have ever been denied participation. Exhibit 1 at 

6 16. It is odd that the direction came from the city manager because Ms. Kuester did not 

7 report to the city manager and was not even in his department. Exhibit 1 at 4:23 – 4:24; see 

8 also Exhibit 3 at 4:9-4:12. Ms. Kuester reported to the chief of staff. Exhibit 1 at 12:21-

9 12:25.

10 17. It was not the city manager’s responsibility to schedule invocation participants. 

11 Exhibit 3 6:1-6:3. It was not even the city manager’s departmental function: scheduling 

12 participants was done “out of the mayor’s office,” which “is separate from my office.” Id. 4-

13 9-4:12. No other groups were scrutinized for their “substantial community ties.” Id. at 10:1 

14 – 10:22.

15 18. The city manager could not enunciate any factors or elements of “substantial 

16 connection.” Id. at 9:11 – 10:17; see also 16:1-16:11. Nor could he recite any unique 

17 identifier that distinguished TST from the permitted participants, other than a perception that 

18 TST was only in Tucson. Id. at 9:11 – 10:17; see also 16:1-16:11. TST received special 

19 scrutiny because they are “unique.” Id. at 12:3-12:6 and 21:8-21:10.

20 19. Ms. Shortt was replaced with a Christian. City’s motion at Exhibit 5, p. 84.11

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 33-4 Filed 03/29/19 Page 5 of 6
18-cv-00621 – statement of material facts supporting plaintiffs’ response Page 6 of 6

1 The aftermath

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

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

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

5 In Scottsdale we ‘ve decided to keep our traditional invocations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 came from outside of Scottsdale and the other was Abrahamic (Islam). Doc. 32-6 (City’s 

13 motion at Exhibit 5), p. 70 (“Phoenix Indian Center,” referring to indigenous Americans), p. 

14 80 (Muslim speaker), and p. 99 (same).

15

16 Exhibit list:

17 1. Deposition of Kelli Kuester

18 2. Deposition of Brian Biesemeyer

19 3. Affidavit of Michelle Shortt

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 33-4 Filed 03/29/19 Page 6 of 6