In a landmark case regarding the intersection of religion and abortion, a U.S. federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit lodged by The Satanic Temple (TST) against Texas abortion laws.
The religious group had alleged that these laws were hindering its members from performing their unique abortion “rituals.”
Judge Charles Eskridge, presiding over the Southern District of Texas, criticized the TST’s lawsuit as “willfully inadequate and deficient,” according to a report from The Texan.
The suit, which was brought on behalf of an individual identified as “Ann Doe,” argued that the TST’s Third and Fifth Tenets necessitated the abortion ritual, which affirmed Doe’s religious allegiance to TST.
Eskridge took issue with the lawsuit’s “spare and unusually cryptic” presentation.
He pointed out that TST failed to adequately elaborate on how the Texas laws directly impacted their “belief structure.”
Among the criticisms he raised, Eskridge said the complaint lacked details about their supposed “religious statutes” and did not sufficiently explain the so-called ‘Seven Tenets’ or ‘rituals.’
The defendant in the lawsuit was Cecile Young, the executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
Young’s defense argued that the suit was baseless, lacked standing, and did not clearly state a claim.
She further sought dismissal based on the principle of sovereign immunity, which shields state officials from certain legal actions.
Eskridge agreed, stating, “Young argues that the third amended complaint is so devoid of explanation that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that any exception to sovereign immunity applies.”
He further noted that the plaintiffs failed to adequately respond to this argument.
Eskridge also stressed that it was not the court’s role to speculate on the plaintiffs’ potential arguments or attempt to connect dots that haven’t been explicitly presented in the case.
He questioned the validity of the complaint, asking, “How, when, why, and in what way did she apply them to Plaintiffs?”
The TST had based much of its argument on the First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise.
Once more, Eskridge expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of substantial information and insight offered by the TST.
He criticized the lawsuit for containing broad allegations lacking in concrete facts, describing them as mere “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Eskridge concluded by pointing out what he believed to be deliberate inadequacies in the lawsuit, given the specificity of earlier complaints and changes in law.
He said, “Given the detail of the prior complaints and these substantial changes in the law, the deficiencies in the operative complaint are no doubt intentional.”
Ultimately, he attributed his dismissal of the case to what he saw as “bad faith” on TST’s part.
Eskridge declared that any further attempts to plead would be futile, condemning the group’s representing attorney for their “conclusory, reductive and intemperate” submissions and “performative and obstinate conduct.”
