chaplains' alleged statements violate the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution, and a constitutional oath, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3, they are alleged to have taken.
The doctrine of stare decisis mandates dismissal of plaintiff" s Establishment Clause claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has unequivocally determined that the existence and public funding of legislative chaplaincies do not violate the Establishment Clause. In the wake of that ruling, the D.C. Circuit en bane dismissed, for failure to raise a substantial constitutional question, a pending Establishment Clause challenge to the congressional chaplaincies. Accordingly, it is now the law of this Circuit that because Establishment Clause challenges to the existence and public funding of the congressional chaplaincies do not raise a substantial constitutional question, district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate them. Contrary to plaintiffs assertion, this Court lacks the power to "recognize" that such binding Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedent has been "overruled" by "statements" in judicial opinions that do not reference - much less overturn - the authority at issue.
Furthermore, plaintiffs effort to expand his Establishment Clause claim to one also implicating Article VI is no more successful in circumventing the settled law controlling this case. Because the constitutionality of the congressional chaplaincies has been conclusively established, plaintiff's Article VI claim has no more merit than his Establishment Clause claim. This Court, however, does not need to reach the merits of plaintiffs Article VI claim because it is not cognizable for myriad reasons grounded in the constitutional separation of powers. Whether analyzed as a matter of Article ffl standing, legislative immunity, or the political question doctrine, plaintiffs effort to embroil the Judiciary in the internal selection of officers of a coordinate political branch manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the courts in our democratic system of representative government. The complaint should be dismissed. -2-