27,2002. See Compl. Iffl 90-93. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Chaplain's prayer, which referred to and affirmed the reference "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, id. ^ 92 and appendix Vin, was "directed at [Plaintiff) Newdow, and intended (implicitly) to demean his religious beliefs[.]" Id. ^ 83. These allegations fail on their face to satisfy any of the three prongs of the standing test set forth in Lujan.
First, the prayer by the Senate Chaplain does not inflict a concrete or particularized injury to a legally cognizable interest of plaintiff s. A review of the portion of the prayer in question that plaintiff cites, see id. ^ 9211, reveals no specific mention of plaintiff or his religious beliefs, nor does it include any "reproach" of plaintiff or any other person. See id. At most, plaintiff appears to assert that the Chaplain's prayer should be interpreted as an indirect expression of disagreement with the ruling in plaintiffs case in the Ninth Circuit. Id. ^ 92. However, mere stated disagreement with a court's decision in a suit where plaintiff is a party is not a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article in standing. Certainly plaintiff cannot claim a legally cognizable interest in insulating that decision from public debate. Moreover, as plaintiff himself
'' Plaintiffgrounds his allegations of personal reproach on the following excerpt from the prayer:
It is with reverence that in a moment we will repeat the words of commitment to trust You which are part of our Pledge of Allegiance to our flag: "One Nation under God, indivisible."
Help us to savor these words this morning. May we never lose a profound sense of awe and wonder over the privilege You have given us to live in this religiously free land. Renew our sense of accountability to You, and never take for granted the freedom we enjoy or the accountability we have to You. As we declare our convictions in the Pledge, we affirm that patriotism is an essential expression of our trust in You.
Compl. If 92.
23-