has satisfied the "injury in fact" requirement of standing.  The Magistrate Judge found that, like the school children who were not required to leave their classroom during Bible readings \ plaintiff was not required to turn off his television set to avoid viewing televised inaugural activities he found offensive. F& R, p. 6.  The court equated Newdow's desire to watch the televised proceedings with plaintiffs who have been found to have standing when they alleged they avoided public places or services to avoid public religious displays. 2  However, the differences between those plaintiffs and Newdow are clear: those plaintiffs all lived or worked in the community where the religious symbols were being displayed, or, in the case of the school children, were in the classroom where the Bible readings occurred.  Those plaintiffs established that they were forced to make real changes in their daily routines so as to avoid the displays they found offensive. Mewdow, in contrast, does not live or work in Washington, D.C. and had to undertake no special burden for the minute or so that the prayer was recited.
The Magistrate Judge rejected defendant's argument that Newdow could simply have turned off the television to avoid
1    School District of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560 (1963).
2    E.g., American Jewish Congress v. City of Beverly Hills, 90 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1996)(persons who avoided public park because of religious symbol had standing); Hewitt v. Joyner, 940 F2d 1561, 1564 (9th Cir. 1991) (same); cf. Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 797 (9th Cir. 1999)(en bane)(parents lacked standing to protest school prayer at graduation because she had no students remaining in the school district and did not allege she would attend future graduations).
2