U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell pressed lawyers for Scottsdale and the Satanic Temple in federal court Tuesday over the city's decision to block the Satanists from leading an invocation at a City Council meeting.

In 2016, the Satanic Temple's Arizona chapter asked to deliver an invocation. Scottsdale approved the request for the Arizona group's co-founder, Michelle Shortt, but later reversed its decision, saying the group had no substantial ties to Scottsdale.

Both sides argued over whether Scottsdale had discriminated against the Satanists based on the city's unwritten policy that speakers must have a substantial tie to the Scottsdale community.

Before the Satanic Temple asked to speak, speakers in Scottsdale were selected from a list and invited to speak, according to court documents. No written policy was ever formalized.

Campbell questioned the city's decision to deny the Satanists the right to give an invocation at meetings, noting the city had allowed organizations outside of the city's limits the chance to speak before.

"If plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that they have members in Scottsdale, under the policy would they be able to give an invocation?" Campbell asked Stephanie Heizer, an assistant city attorney.

"If they’re established in our community then yes, (we) cannot discriminate," Heizer said. "But the question of whether they have members in Scottsdale isn’t before the court."

The Satanic Temple maintains that it was discriminated against and never was asked in the application process if it had a significant tie to Scottsdale.

"There is no evidence that any other group was ever asked about their ties," attorney Stuart De Haan said in court. "It was only applied to this group after public outcry."

Campbell also had questions for the Satanic Temple. He asked when the Arizona chapter of the temple was officially formed, and if Shortt was acting on her own or acting on behalf of the temple.

Ultimately, Campbell denied both sides request for a ruling without a trial, saying too many facts are in dispute.

Campbell suggested scheduling the trial — expected to last a couple days — in November or December.

De Haan said he was hoping for a ruling one way or another, but he would carry it as far as needed.

The city's policy

The Satanic Temple's Arizona chapter, based in Tucson, has made requests to deliver invocations in cities such as Phoenix, Sahuarita and Scottsdale but has never successfully been able to deliver an invocation.

The Phoenix council voted to end invocations at its meetings after the temple requested to speak.

De Haan, filed suit in U.S. District Court for Arizona last year, saying the city had no written policy regarding prayer and only reversed its decision after backlash from the community and city officials.

"In every constitutionally permissible respect, (the Satanic Temple) is similarly situated to the groups that have been permitted to participate," de Haan argued in court documents. "This unconstitutionally treats similarly situated groups different."

Scottsdale maintains that the city had a longstanding practice of allowing invocations only from groups with a substantial connection to Scottsdale, such as a physical location in or near the city, or a large representation of Scottsdale residents as members or congregants.

“The policy is not unconstitutional because it’s informal,” Heizer said in court Tuesday.

Council disparaged Satanism

The temple also argued in court that the mayor and several council members made disparaging remarks about the temple before the decision.

On Feb. 11, 2016, three days after the Satanists had requested to speak, Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield sent responses to constituents stating that she did “NOT want the Satanists” and considers allowing them to speak “taking equality too far," according to the complaint.

Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp made a statement the next month announcing that she intended to leave the meeting if the Satanic Temple were to give an invocation, according to court documents.

The court documents also say that Mayor Jim Lane claimed that he “stopped so-called ‘Satanists’ from mocking City Hall traditions with a ‘prayer’" in an election pamphlet.

"These statements incur the highest culpability because they were made with full understanding that (the Satanic Temple) is protected by the Constitution," de Haan said in court documents.

The city argued in court that while the mayor and members of the council voiced their displeasure with the Satanic Temple, they ultimately didn't have a say on the issue one way or the other.

Reach the reporter Lorraine Longhi at llonghi@gannett.com or 480-243-4086. Follow her on Twitter, @lolonghi.

Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentral.com today.