at issue could not "establish" religion in violation of the First Amendment. However, because of the lack of jurisdiction to proceed, and in any event, Newdow's lack of standing to attack the content of inaugural prayer, the court will not reach the merits of the claimed First Amendment violation past what it has reached already. Facts
The pertinent facts involved in this dispute are easily stated and are not in dispute.' On January 20,2001, the Reverend Franklin Graham, in place of his father, delivered an invocation at the inauguration. The invocation is reprinted at Exhibit A to the Graham Declaration. In pertinent part the invocation sought the assistance of the "Lord" in the carrying out of Presidential and Cabinet functions. The prayer closed with the following request:
May this be the beginning of a new dawn for America,
as we Humble ourselves before You and acknowledge You alone
as our Lord, our Savior and our Redeemer.
We pray this in the name of the Father, And of the Son the Lord Jesus Christ, And of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reverend Graham asserted that he had "total control" over the content of the invocation, although
it is doubtful that he would have stated a religious premise at odds with the President's beliefs. In
any event, who exercised control over the precise terminology is not ultimately pertinent to the
inquiry. Newdow also makes reference to another clergymen's prayer-Reverend Caldwell- which
similarly made reference to Jesus Christ. Opposition at 17; President's Exhibit B at 24-25.
////
////
////
////
////
'The standards for summary judgment are well established and need not be set forth here especially in light of the fact that all concerned agree that only legal issues require adjudication here.
-3-