ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed for two reasons. As explained in Part I, plaintiffs claims should be dismissed onjusticiability grounds because he lacks standing. As explained in Part n, even assuming justiciability, plaintiffs claims should be dismissed on the merits because they have been definitively rejected by the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit.
I.   PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING
The party asserting jurisdiction always has the burden '"clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.'" FW/PBS. Inc. v. City of Dallas. 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (internal citation omitted). To have standing under the Constitution, plaintiff must allege that he has suffered (or will suffer): (i) an "actual or imminent" mjury-in-fact; (ii) "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant";
and (iii) "likely" to be "redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff cannot meet these requirements.9
____A.    Plaintiffs Claim That He "Applied" to be a
Congressional Chaplain Cannot Establish Standing
Plaintiff alleges that he "applied for the position of legislative chaplain in both the Senate and the House," Compl. at ^ 75, and that, "due solely to his religious beliefs," his application "will not even be seriously considered." Id; at ^ 76. Even assuming the truth of these allegations, plaintiff cannot satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. If, as Marsh holds, a legislative body may
'Although Marsh and Murray so plainly dispose of plaintiffs claims on the merits, we raise plaintiffs standing because standing "normally [is] considered a threshold question that must be resolved in [plaintiffs] favor before proceeding to the merits." Steel Co. y. Citizens for a Better Env't. 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998).
-8-