hi furtherance of an alleged need for "an unequivocal declaration ofMarsh's demise," id. H 25, plaintiff also alleges that the Supreme Court erroneously applied various Establishment Clause tests in Marsh, and that the decision contains "many logical flaws" and was "wrong the day it was decided." Id. ^ 15,17. He also alleges that Marsh has produced adverse "historical" consequences, such as disagreement over the selection of a House chaplain, and adverse "judicial" consequences, such as subsequent courts relying upon "the logic" of the decision. Id. 1ffl 20-30.
Plaintiff also challenges the practice of only having legislative chaplains who believe in God as a violation of the prohibition against religious test oaths, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3, and legislative chaplains' statements of allegiance to God as a violation of the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, and their oath to uphold the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3. Compl. ^f 47-71, Prayer for Relief^ n. Plaintiff named as defendants four congressional disbursing officials (Jeri Thomson, Secretary of the Senate; Timothy Wineman, Financial Clerk of the Senate; James Eagen, Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives; and Chris Baptiste, Payroll Supervisor of the House of Representatives), the Congress of the United States, and the United States of America.
He seeks an order from this Court (i) "recogniz[ing]" that Marsh has been "overruled";
(ii) declaring that the existence of the congressional chaplaincies is unconstitutional, that the
^...continued)
Lee, 505 U.S. at 589; "[TJhe religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer." Santa Felndep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290,313 (2000).
The first three statements are allegedly "inconsistent with the holding in Marsh." Id. ^ 16. The last two statements are allegedly in "direct[] conflict" with it. Id. ^ 18.
-8-