PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since the founding days of our Republic, chaplains selected and paid by the Congress have opened each House's legislative sessions with prayer. In Marsh v. Chambers. 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court generally upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer against an Establishment Clause challenge. Although Marsh considered the specifics of Nebraska's legislative prayer practice, the D.C. Circuit, in Murray v. Buchanan. 720 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en bane), confirmed that Marsh applies equally to Congress's prayer practice. For almost twenty years now. Marsh has been the law of the land. According to plaintiff, however, and notwithstanding Marsh - which, he claims, the Supreme Court silently has "overruled" -Congress's legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause, Article VTs "Religious Test" Clause (because all congressional chaplains allegedly have been "theists"), and the Supremacy Clause (because congressional chaplains allegedly have made statements contending that "God's law reigns supreme").
Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed. As an initial matter, plaintiff lacks standing because he has not been "injured" by Congress's prayer practice, whether as a "taxpayer" or otherwise. Even assuming standing, any claim that legislative prayer violates the Establishment Clause is untenable in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Marsh and the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Murray. Plaintiffs claim that, under the Religious Test Clause, Congress may not choose "theists" as chaplains also lacks merit. Assuming the Clause even applies on these facts, it adds nothing to plaintiffs (already baseless) Establishment Clause claim. Plaintiffs Supremacy Clause claim is frivolous.