Red state ordered to bow to Satanists as judge clears way for Capitol holiday event

The ACLU of Iowa has won a preliminary injunction that clears the way for The Satanic Temple to stage a holiday event next month in the Iowa Capitol rotunda.

In August, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa over the state’s repeated refusal to grant permission for the temple to stage what the ACLU calls “a family-friendly winter holiday event.” The ACLU of Iowa cited the fact that other religious and civic groups are allowed to stage events in the rotunda.

Shefali Aurora, ACLU of Iowa staff attorney, said Monday that “state officials have made it clear that they denied The Satanic Temple permission to hold events in the Capitol rotunda because they disagreed with their religious viewpoint. It is a foundational principle that the government cannot restrict speech in this way, favor one religion over another, or discriminate against religious groups because they don’t agree with them … We are glad that the court decision today upholds the principles of free speech that we all hold dear and requires the state to act in line with the constitutional requirements of the First Amendment.”

Named as defendants in the ongoing case are the director of the Iowa Department of Administrative Services, Mark Campbell; the department’s former director, Adam Steen; and the department itself.

The lawsuit has sought to have the court declare that state officials’ denials violated The Satanic Temple’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments as well as their rights under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and Iowa Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In agreeing Monday to issue a preliminary injunction in the case, Chief Judge Stephanie M. Rose noted that in December 2023, The Satanic Temple was permitted to hold a holiday display in the rotunda, alongside other holiday displays such as a Christian nativity scene.

Beginning in 2024 and continuing through 2026, the state denied The Satanic Temple’s applications. The state would later allege that the 2024 denial was based, at least in part, on a concern that participants in the event would be part of a costume contest and that the costumes would involve carrying bundles of sticks that might then be used as weapons against children.

But in his public statements about his denial of the permit, Steen didn’t reference the sticks and outlined a different reasoning for the decision, Rose noted in her ruling.

“No more marketing to children,” Steen said at the time. “No more trying to get them to create Satanic symbols, sing Satanic hymns, partake in Satanic rituals. No more having youth involved in costume contests and defending weapons used to abuse youth.”

Rose also noted that Steen testified under oath that The Satanic Temple’s religious beliefs played no part in his denial of the permit, and that when he was asked why he had publicly emphasized Satanic symbols and hymns, he testified he could not recall the reason.

“Steen coordinated the (permit) denial with the governor’s office, emphasized Satanic symbols, hymns and rituals when he described the event to the public, and explained his policy change as a way to avoid losing a free-speech argument,” Rose stated in her ruling.

The decision under court review was not the 2024 decision made by Steen but the 2026 denial made by his successor, Campbell. In her ruling, Rose pointed out that Campbell gave somewhat conflicting accounts as to the rationale for his decision on the temple’s planned 2026 event.

“When the court asked whether his ‘entire reasoning’ and ‘sole reason’ for the denials was that the applications matched the 2024 application, he agreed,” Rose stated. “Moments later, defense counsel asked whether he had ‘independently reviewed and thought about’ the applications or had ‘just rubber-stamped a prior decision.’ He then offered a different explanation: Department staff had told him the 2024 application was denied for ‘fear of harm to children,’ and he looked at the application and he concurred.”

State officials, Rose found, “never looked into whether the sticks posed any real danger” and said Steen admitted not knowing whether the sticks were real or props.

Campbell had “performed no independent evaluation of whether the costumes posed any risk,” Rose concluded. “Meanwhile, the Capitol already guards against the very danger the department invokes. Everyone who enters passes through metal detectors staffed by security personnel who examine what visitors bring in and can stop items that are not allowed.”

In issuing the injunction, Rose barred Campbell from denying The Satanic Temple’s application to stage an event at the Capitol on Dec. 12, 2026, as described in the organization’s March 2026 permit application.

Campbell may impose on the event only those restrictions or conditions the state would apply to other indoor events at the Capitol, such as security, insurance and damage-deposit requirements.

Despite the injunction, litigation in the case continues, with the ACLU of Iowa seeking a finding of constitutional violations and violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act and Iowa Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As part of the lawsuit, the ACLU of Iowa is seeking an award for damages resulting from past violations.

Representatives of the state, who have said they do not comment on pending litigation, have denied any wrongdoing in the matter.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.