•i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

a tradition which occurs every four years. Therefore, the threat of injury is not speculative. That this injury (in the view of plaintiff) occurs every four years does not render it any less real or immediate than the injury suffered by students challenging high school graduation ceremonies on Establishment Clause grounds. Defendant's implicit suggestion that plaintiff must wait until shortly before an inauguration to bring his action is not realistic.
Defendant next argues that plaintiff fails to meet the third test for standing, i.e. redressability. In order to meet this prong, the plaintiff must show that he would "personally benefit in a tangible way from the court's intervention." Warm v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490, 508. 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2210 (1975). Defendant contends that plaintiffs request that the court declare that President Bush violated the First Amendment would do little more than provide plaintiff with the satisfaction of having the court declare that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
As discussed above, plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting any prayer from being read at an inauguration. An order prohibiting inaugural prayers would personally benefit plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant's argument that plaintiff has not met the third test for standing is without merit.
For the reasons discussed above, the court finds that plaintiff has standing to bring his Establishment Clause claim, at least insofar as plaintiff seeks a total ban on prayer at tlie Presidential inauguration. Defendant also argues that plaintiff does not have taxpayer standing to bring this action. However, the court does not reach this problematic issue, see Doe v. Madison School Dist.. supra, because plaintiff has standing for the reasons discussed above.
Merits
Defendant argues that the recitation of a prayer at the inauguration does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In Marsh v. Chambers. 463 U.S. 783, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the Nebraska legislature's practice of opening each legislative session with an invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court recognized the
' 7