the opening prayer for daily sessions of the House and Senate - is also unconstitutional, see id. ^ 31-42, and that the House and Senate should be prohibited from spending government funds to support such offices, see id. at 18, Prayer ^ VI. In light of his professed belief that legislative chaplains violate the Constitution and his desire that those offices be abolished, plaintiff certainly cannot claim that he has suffered an injury to a legally cognizable interest because he will not be elected Senate or House Chaplain.'4
In addition, plaintiff's alleged "employment discrimination injury" does not satisfy the causation prong of standing. As stated above, the Senate and House Chaplains are officers of their respective Houses, elected by the Members thereof. See U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2 & 3; see also House of Representatives Rule HI, reprinted in H. R. Doc. No. 106-320, at 345. Hence, only Senators and Representatives can participate in the respective selection of the Senate and House Chaplains. Yet, plaintiff has not sued (and could not sue) any Senators or Representatives, but instead has sued four administrative officers of the Senate and House - the Secretary of the Senate, the Financial Clerk of the Senate, the Chief Administrative Office of the House, and the Payroll Supervisor for the House - none of whom participates in the election of the Senate or House Chaplains. Thus, plaintiff's alleged injury is not fairly traceable to the Senate or House defendants named in this suit. SeeKurtz, 829 F.2d at 1142-43 (plaintiff's suit naming Senate and
14 Plaintiff's allegations demonstrate that this "injury" is nothing more than a contrived attempt to manufacture standing for the Court to hear his claim. Plaintiff's alleged "applications" for Senate and House Chaplain were two brief letters, one to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the other to Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (neither of whom are defendants in this suit), both dated August 23,2002 -just four days before he filed this action. Indeed, those letters were apparently following-up on two July 31, 2002 letters that plaintiff had sent so hurriedly that he had inadvertently neglected to include his name on the correspondence. See Exhibit 1 (letter to Senator Thomas Daschle from the Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow, dated Aug. 23, 2002; and letter to Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert from the Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow, dated Aug. 23,2002).
-26-