In a decisive ruling, a federal appeals court has upheld Indiana’s strict abortion restrictions, dismissing a challenge from an unexpected source—the Satanic Temple.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously rejected a lawsuit filed by the Satanic Temple against Indiana’s pro-life law, affirming a 2023 lower court decision that the group lacked standing to sue in the case titled Satanic Temple v. Rokita.

The court explicitly stated it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

This decision ensures that Indiana’s near-total abortion ban, enacted as the first of its kind after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, remains in effect with exceptions only for the mother’s life or health, fatal fetal anomalies before 22 weeks, or rape and incest before 10 to 12 weeks.

Supporters of the ruling contend that this outcome reinforces the integrity of Indiana’s legislative priorities, Breitbart reported. The state has positioned itself as a leader in protecting unborn life since the fall of Roe v. Wade. This latest judicial victory is seen as a clear signal that courts are unwilling to entertain fringe challenges to deeply held values.

Court Dismisses Satanic Temple’s Legal Standing

The Satanic Temple first launched its complaint in 2022, asserting that Indiana’s law should include exemptions for what it called a “Satanic Abortion Ritual” under both the U.S. Constitution and the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At the time, the group had no physical abortion clinic in Indiana but expressed plans to offer telehealth services there.

The Seventh Circuit, however, wasn’t buying the argument, ruling, “… [T]he Satanic Temple lacks standing to sue, and we do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear its claims.” That’s a polite way of saying the court saw no basis for even considering this case.

It’s a firm reminder that not every grievance gets a day in court, especially when the foundation is shaky at best. One has to wonder if this was less about religious freedom and more about testing the limits of legal creativity.

Indiana Officials Celebrate Pro-Life Victory

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita didn’t hold back in his response to the ruling, stating, “This lawsuit was ridiculous from the start, but this unanimous court decision is a critical victory because it continues to uphold our pro-life law that is constitutionally and legally rock-solid.” Rokita’s confidence reflects a broader sentiment among Hoosiers who value the state’s commitment to life.

Rokita further emphasized, “Our state has proudly built a strong culture of life, and no satanic cult—or any extremist group—is going to stop us.” While the rhetoric is sharp, it underscores a determination to protect policies that resonate with many in Indiana.

Solicitor General James Barta echoed this resolve, noting, “We’re proud to have secured another win that keeps Indiana’s pro-life law firmly in place.” That’s the kind of statement that rallies the base without crossing into vitriol. It’s a win, plain and simple, for those who see these laws as essential safeguards.

Debating Religious Freedom and Abortion Limits

The Satanic Temple’s argument hinged on religious freedom, claiming their ritual warranted an exemption from Indiana’s abortion restrictions. But let’s be real—courts have long drawn lines between genuine belief and legal loopholes.

Indiana’s law, enacted swiftly after the 2022 Supreme Court shift, set a high bar for restricting abortions, allowing them only in narrow, life-threatening, or traumatic circumstances. For many, this represents a return to sanity in a debate often clouded by progressive overreach.

The dismissal of this lawsuit doesn’t just preserve the law; it sends a message to groups seeking to exploit religious freedom claims for unrelated agendas. If every organization could demand exemptions based on loosely defined rituals, where would the line be drawn?

Broader Implications for State Abortion Laws

This ruling isn’t just about Indiana—it’s a benchmark for other states crafting similar pro-life legislation. The unanimous nature of the Seventh Circuit’s decision suggests that challenges lacking clear legal standing will struggle to gain traction.

For Hoosiers, the outcome reinforces a cultural stance that values life over what some see as ideological stunts. The Satanic Temple’s telehealth ambitions may persist, but they’ve hit a brick wall in this round.

Ultimately, this case highlights the tension between religious liberty and state authority in the post-Roe landscape. While the debate over abortion will rage on, Indiana stands firm for now, backed by a judiciary unwilling to bend to unconventional challenges. Perhaps it’s time for opponents to rethink their strategies—or at least come with a stronger footing.