1                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
2  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................... ii
3  I.   INTRODUCTION.............................................  1
4  II.  STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS............................  2
5  III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................  3
6  IV.  ARGUMENT.................................................  4
7      A.   STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT......................  4
8       B.   MEWDOW LACKS ARTICLE III STANDING TO CHALLENGE
THE RECITATION OF A PRAYER AT THE INAUGURATION......  5
9
1.   Newdow Fails To Meet The First Test For
10                 Standing Because He Has Not Suffered An
Injury In Fact.................................  5
11
2.   Newdow Fails To Meet The Third Test For
12                 Standing Because He Cannot Show His Injury
Can Be Redressed In This Action................ 11
13
3.   Newdow Lacks Standing As A Taxpayer
14                 Because He Failed To Identify Any Specific
Expenditure Of Tax Dollars For The Prayer...... 12
15
C.   NEWDOW HAS NO STANDING TO ARGUE THE RIGHTS OF
16            THEISTIC NON-CHRISTIANS............................. 13
17       D.   THE RECITATION OF A CHRISTIAN PRAYER AT THE
INAUGURATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT
18            CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITY THE DRAFTERS OF THE FIRST
19           AMENDMENT INTENDED TO PROHIBIT...................... 17
20       E.   A REASONABLE PERSON HEARING THE INAUGURAL PRAYER WOULD NOT VIEW IT AS BEING STATE-SPONSORSHIP OF
21            RELIGION............................................ 22
22  V.  CONCLUSION................................................ 24