prayer at the inauguration, that is no reason to find standing here.
B.   Newdow has not shown that he changed his behavior or has undertaken a special burden to avoid hearing the inaugural prayer.
Newdow cites a long line of cases, including many from the Ninth Circuit, in which citizens complaining about public displays of allegedly religious symbols were found to have standing.1  The present case does not, of course, involve a public display of a religious symbol, so their value in answering the standing question is negligible.  Nevertheless, even a cursory analysis of those cases demonstrates that Newdow's reliance on them is misplaced.
In Books v. City of Elkhart. 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied., 2001 WL 267479 (May 29, 2001), plaintiff, a resident of Elkhart, had standing where he alleged he had to see a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments if he wished to use a public building which housed the mayor's office, the city's legal and human relations department, the city court, the prosecutor's office, and the city council offices.  Jd., at 295. Plaintiff alleged that he
passes the monument in his daily activities, including: riding his bicycle on a route that passes the Municipal Building; patronizing the Elkhart Public Library, which is located across the street from the Municipal Building, and visiting his landlord's office and his cousin's home, both of which are located near the Municipal Building.  He
1    See cases cited in footnote 5 on page 5 of Newdow's "Opposing Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice."
6