failure to elect an atheist as chaplain violates the Religious Test Clause, and that alleged statements of the chaplains violate the Supremacy Clause and their oath to uphold the Constitution; and (iii) enjoining defendants from making any disbursements to the chaplaincies. Id., Prayer for Relief.
ARGUMENT
I.   STAREDECISIS SEQVIRES DISMISSAL OFPLAINTIFF'S ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE CLAIM FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Under the principles of stare decisis, plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim is barred by the Supreme Court decision in Marsh v. Chambers, upholding the constitutionality of legislative chaplaincies, and the en bane D.C. Circuit decision in Murray v. Buchanan, 720 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (per curiam), dismissing for want of a substantial federal question an Establishment Clause challenge to the public funding of the congressional chaplaincies. Both two-decade-old decisions are universally accepted as settled law. Neither decision has been undermined. Neither decision has been overruled. And unless — and until — those decisions are overruled by those courts, the doctrine of stare decisis bars plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim.
Stare decisis "makes each judgment a statement of the law, or precedent, binding in future cases before the same court or another court owing obedience to its decisions." Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Dombeck, 107 F.3d 897, 900 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting 1B James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ^ 0.401 (2d ed. 1996) (emphasis omitted)). As the Supreme Court has admonished, stare decisis is a doctrine that "directs [courts] to adhere not only to the holdings of our prior cases, but also to their explications of the governing rules of law." Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44,67 (1996) (citation omitted).
-9-