^
the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be 'fairly ...trace... fable] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not...m[e] result [ofj (he independent action of some third party not before the court; '" and (3) "it must be 'likely' ;is opposed (o merely 'speculative,' (Iiat the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'" Luian v. Defenders of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130,2136-2137 (1992 ).
Defendant argues that while it is clear that plaintiff was offended by the prayer, this falls short of an actual concrete injury sufficient to confer standing.
Defendant relies heavily on Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Inc.. 454 U.S. 464, 102 S. Ct. 752 (1982), the Supreme Court held that psychological injury alone did not establish standing in an action brought pursuant to the Establishment Clause. The Court also identified the proximity of the plaintiffs to the challenged conduct as affecting standing. In particular, the Valley r-'orpe plaintiffs, "American?;
United for Separation of Church and State, Inc...and four of its employees, learned of the conveyance [of federally-owned land in Pennsylvania to Valley Forge Christian College] through a news release." 454 U.S. at 469, 102 S. Ct. at 756. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs. who lived in Virginia and Maryland, lacked standing to allege violation oftlie Establishment Clause.
Although respondents claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else. They fail to identify any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional err or, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees. That is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. Ill, even thought the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms.
*****
We simply cannot see that respondents have alleged an injury of any kind, economic or otherwise, sufficient to confer standing. Respondents complain of a transfer of property located in Chester County, PA. The named plaintiffs reside in Maryland and Virginia; their organizational headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. They learned of the transfer through a news release. Their claim that the Government has violated the Establishment Clause does not provide a special license to roam me country in search of governmental wrongdoing and to reveal their discoveries in federal court. The federal courts were simply not
•
4