Lucien Greaves, leader of the Satanic Temple, which is based in Salem, accused the judge of colluding with the city to drop the case, and said Wednesday that Kelley’s decision “goes against both the letter and the spirit of the law.”

“It’s unconstitutional, it’s ignorant, and it undermines our most fundamental liberties,” Greaves said. “But it’s no surprise because I think the court was corrupt from start.”

Satanic Temple members are not devil worshippers, nor do they “promote evil,” according to their website. Members consider the idea of Satan “a symbol of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority.”

The temple has drawn attention in recent years for its activism, most recently by petitioning Texas officials to allow members to receive abortions as part of a religious ritual following the reversal of national abortion protections under Roe v. Wade.

A spokesperson for Mayor Michelle Wu could not immediately be reached for comment.

The lawsuit stems from a 2016 incident in which the Satanic Temple received a letter from then-city councilor Wu explaining why the council declined to invite the Temple to give the opening prayer at one of its meetings.

In the letter, Wu said each councilor can extend an invitation to two to three faith leaders per year and typically uses these invitations to recognize “faith leaders who are active in the community, and organizations that are representative of their districts,” according to the decision.

In a deposition, City Council Compliance Director Christine O’Donnell added that, although councilors do not limit speakers based on their religious affiliation, speakers are selected “by invitation. So, the limit would be if you don’t get an invitation, you don’t give the invocation.”

After reviewing the evidence, Kelley determined that “the city councilors’ primary motivation in inviting an invocation speaker, based on the evidence before the court, has always been the individual or organization’s involvement in the community.”

Greaves told the Globe that the court did not take into account community service projects and other outreach efforts between the Temple and the Greater Boston community when making its decision.

“They never asked what charity work we do. We do homeless drives, hand out menstrual products, but they never wanted to hear about any of that,” he said, adding that the temple intends to appeal the decision.

However, the judge concluded that the facts of the case are “devoid of any evidence” that the council’s decision not to invite the Temple to a meeting was the result of religious discrimination or another “impermissible motive.”

Ivy Scott can be reached at ivy.scott.com. Follow her .