II.   CONGRESS'S CHAPLAINCY PRACTICE IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Plaintiff argues that Congress's chaplaincy practice is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause, Article VTs Religious Test Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. Even assuming justiciability, none of these claims has merit.
A.    Plaintiffs Establishment Clause Claim Is Untenable Under Controlling Precedent
Plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim is utterly baseless. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit (en bane) have upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer against an Establishment Clause challenge. See Marsh. 463 U.S. at 786-95; Murray. 720 F.2d at 690; see also Kurtz. 829 F.2d at 1147 (R.B. Ginsburg, J., dissenting from the court's standing disposition) ("The prayer practice that has existed in legislative assemblies in the United States for 'more than 200 years'... is not subject to constitutional assault given the High Court's recent and resounding declaration") (internal citation omitted); Colo v. Treasurer and Receiver Gen.. 392 N.E.2d 1195 (Mass. 1979) (upholding state legislative prayer practice against Establishment Clause, Equal Protection, and state law challenges) (cited in Marsh. 463 U.S. at 792).
Indeed, in Murray, the D.C. Circuit deemed an Establishment Clause challenge to Congress's chaplaincy practice so insubstantial that it directed the district court to dismiss "for want of a substantial constitutional question," see 720 F.2d at 690, which effectively is a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See Steel Co.. 523 U.S. at 89 (court may dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the claim is '"so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decision ofth[e] [Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy"); 13B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3564 (1984).
-17-