The Satanic Temple v. Lamar Media Company

Q: What court decided Lamar Media Company?

The Satanic Temple v. Lamar Media Company was decided by the U.S. District Court in 2022.

Q: Who won Lamar Media Company?

The outcome in The Satanic Temple v. Lamar Media Company was: Pending. The Satanic Temple sued a billboard advertising company for religious discrimination under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act for refusing to display billboards promoting awareness of a 'Satanic Abortion Ritual.'

Q: What legal issues are involved in Lamar Media Company?

The Satanic Temple v. Lamar Media Company involves the following religious liberty issues: Church & State, Free Exercise.

The Satanic Temple sued a billboard advertising company for religious discrimination under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act for refusing to display billboards promoting awareness of a ‘Satanic Abortion Ritual.’

ReligiousLiberty.TV

March 3, 2026

0 min read

Year: 2022 Court: U.S. District Court Outcome: Pending

Church & State Free Exercise

Holding: The Satanic Temple sued a billboard advertising company for religious discrimination under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act for refusing to display billboards promoting awareness of a 'Satanic Abortion Ritual.'

Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

📄 Read Opinion Article link

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com PDF

Satanic Temple Sues Company that Refused "Abortion Ritual" Billboard March 2, 2022

Primary coverage 📎 wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com PDF

The Satanic Temple v. Lamar Media Company is a Church & State case decided by the U.S. District Court in 2022. The court held that the Satanic Temple sued a billboard advertising company for religious discrimination under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act for refusing to display billboards promoting awareness of a 'Satanic Abortion Ritual.' The case resulted in a Pending outcome.

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor606 U.S. 522 (2025)
5
U.S. Supreme Court
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
📄 Opinion available
2
Roake v. BrumleyNo. 24-30 (2026)
2
Anti-Religion
A preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana's Ten Commandments display law is vacated because plaintiffs' legal challenge is not yet…
📄 Opinion available
3
Gilfillan v. City of Philadelphia637 F.2d 924 (1980)
2
Philadelphia violated the Establishment Clause by spending taxpayer funds to build a platform for a papal mass and…
📄 Opinion available
4
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.573 U.S. 682 (2014)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Religious liberty protections under RFRA apply to closely held for-profit corporations.
📄 Opinion available
5
Hubersberger v. State2 CA-CV 2025-0188 (2026)
1
Religious motivation does not provide immunity from neutral criminal laws protecting private property; the state may prosecute trespassers…
📄 Opinion available
6
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District(2026)
1
Pending
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reconsidering whether Texas can mandate Ten Commandments displays in public…
7
Kimberly Ann Polk v. Montgomery County Board of Education
1
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a substitute teacher's lawsuit challenging a school district…
8
United States v. Don Lemon(2026)
1
U.S. District Court
Pending
The government indicted Don Lemon under the FACE Act for alleged coordination in disrupting religious worship, though judges…
9
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. DoeNo. 24-856 (2026)
1
U.S. Supreme Court
Pending
The Court must determine if U.S. corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim…
📄 Opinion available
10
Satanic Temple, Inc. v. RokitaNo. 23-3247 (2026)
1
The Satanic Temple lacks associational standing to challenge Indiana's abortion ban because it failed to identify specific injured…
📄 Opinion available