Ninth Circuit Remand Ends Satanic Temple Challenge to Idaho Abortion Ban

BOISE, Idaho –  A federal judge has permanently dismissed The Satanic Temple’s challenge to Idaho’s abortion bans, closing a years-long battle over religious freedom and reproductive rights.

Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Salem, Massachusetts, The Satanic Temple (TST) is a non-theistic new religious movement that uses the figure of Satan as a symbol of rebellion against arbitrary authority, rather than as a literal deity. The organization frames its mission around resistance to tyrannical power and religious overreach.

While often controversial, TST’s work has pushed forward national discussions about religious liberty, equal representation, and the role of religions in American public life. The organization has occasionally aligned with Pagan-adjacent issues and rights, but is not Pagan or part of any Pagan tradition.   Over the past decade, however, it has become known for high-visibility campaigns that test the boundaries of church–state separation, religious pluralism, and civil liberties.

TST is recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt religious organization. Its activism spans reproductive rights, through its Religious Reproductive Rights campaign and “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic”, as well as challenges to Christian-favored displays on public property via its Satanic Representation Campaign. The group also organizes the After School Satan Club, the Protect Children Project, the Grey Faction mental-health initiative, and community service drives through its Good Works program.

In 2022, TST sued the State of Idaho, shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization allowed states to ban or severely restrict abortion. TST alleges that Idaho’s “trigger law”, one of the most restrictive in the country, criminalizes nearly all abortions, with only narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the pregnant person’s life. A separate statute also permits certain family members of a fetus to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers.

In its lawsuit, TST argued that Idaho’s bans violated multiple constitutional protections:

• The Fifth Amendment, by “taking” the economic value of a pregnant person’s womb;
• The Thirteenth Amendment, by effectively imposing involuntary servitude on pregnant people;
• The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, by privileging certain victims over others;
• and both federal and state religious freedom statutes, on the grounds that abortion is central to TST’s “abortion ritual,” a religious practice meant to affirm bodily autonomy and self-empowerment.

Chief U.S. District Judge David Nye rejected these arguments in 2024, finding that TST lacked standing because it had not identified any Idaho residents directly harmed by the law. Even if the group could establish standing, Nye wrote, the claims themselves were “absurd” and “outlandish.”

 

TST appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely agreed with the lower court. The appellate panel wrote that TST had shown no concrete injury: it had no Idaho patients, no Idaho-licensed medical providers, and no members facing imminent enforcement of the abortion bans. Still, the Ninth Circuit asked Judge Nye to clarify whether the case should be dismissed permanently or if TST should be allowed to amend its complaint.

This week, Judge Nye delivered his answer: no amendment could save the lawsuit. The case was dismissed with prejudice, a final judgment that bars TST from refiling the same claims.

“[The Satanic Temple’s] efforts to shoehorn its disagreements with Idaho’s abortion statutes into constitutional claims rang of the classic phrase ‘trying to fit a square peg in a round hole,’” Nye wrote. “It simply does not work.”

Nye added that the Ninth Circuit’s procedural instructions placed the court “in a somewhat awkward position,” noting that his earlier findings made clear that any amendment would have been futile.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R and former chair of the Republican Party, and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives)  praised the ruling in robust terms. In his press release, Labrador said the decision “confirms those protections are constitutionally sound” and emphasized the state’s commitment to defending its abortion bans.

“The Satanic Temple’s attempt to manufacture constitutional violations out of disagreement with Idaho’s values has been rejected at every level,” Labrador said. “We’ve defended Idaho’s laws through every stage of this litigation, and we will continue protecting the right of Idaho’s elected representatives to defend life.”

From the outset, TST argued that Idaho’s bans infringed on its religious liberty. The Temple maintains that its third tenet, “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone”, forms the basis of a religious abortion ritual, a ceremony requiring affirmations of autonomy before and after the procedure. Mandatory waiting periods, counseling, and abortion bans, TST contends, impose restrictions on a religious practice in a way that would be unthinkable for baptism or communion.

TST’s website explains: “TST stands alone because we are the only entity that can assert a religious liberty claim that terminating a pregnancy is a central part of a religious ritual that encourages self-empowerment and affirms bodily autonomy.”

While the Ninth Circuit resolved the appeal on standing, the district court also went on to reject TST’s theories on the merits, and the latest order reiterates that even an amended complaint could not cure those defects.

 

TST’s Response

Lucien Greaves, cofounder and spokesperson for The Satanic Temple, sharply criticized the ruling. In an email statement, Greaves described the dismissal as “a cowardly punt that refused to examine the legal merits of our claim, in favor of denying us standing.”

He added that the organization is not deterred: “When we have a pregnant plaintiff, we will refile a claim, and this time the courts should have no excuse but to do their job, which they so desperately avoid.”

Greaves suggested that the courts’ procedural posture reflects a reluctance to confront the underlying religious-freedom questions: “Perhaps they are trying to convince us that we truly cannot contest their abortion restrictions again for fear that the law is on our side.”

With the case dismissed with prejudice, TST’s only path forward in Idaho would be to file a new lawsuit based on new facts, likely involving a member who is pregnant and directly affected by Idaho’s laws.

The Temple’s broader strategy of using religious freedom arguments to challenge abortion restrictions has met resistance in multiple states, including Indiana and Missouri, where similar lawsuits have failed.

TST maintains that it will continue fighting for bodily autonomy as a religious right. For now, Idaho’s abortion bans remain in force, and the legal debate over reproductive freedom and non-theistic religious claims remains far from settled.

---

The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.

---

To join a conversation on this post:

Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.