1   which would preclude application of the general rule that the President cannot be enjoined by the
2  courts.6 On the contrary, the fact that the inauguration of the President, and what may be said by the
3  President or his speakers, is wholly integral to the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch
4  alone, strongly counsel against judicial interference. On this point alone, the President is entitled to
5  have the entire case dismissed onjurisdictional grounds.7
6         B. Newdow Lacks Standing to Argue for a Specific Tailoring of Presidential Prayer
7         Because There is No Relief that the Court Could Fashion
8                 The parties correctly apprehend the essential standards for standing, but the court does
9  not agree with all aspects of the parties' application of those standards.
10          "[Bjefore reaching a decision on the merits, we [are required to] address the standing issue to determine if we have jurisdiction." Nat'1 Wildlife Fed'n v. Adams. 629 F.2d
11          587, 593 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1980). "[T]he standing question is whether the plaintiff has 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his
12         invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf." Warth v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490, 498- 99, 95 S.Ct.
13         2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (quoting Baker v. Carr. 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). There are three requirements for standing: (1) "a
14          plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact'—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
15          'conjectural' or 'hypothetical;'" (2) "there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be 'fairly... trace[ablej to the
16         challenged action of the defendant, and not... th[ej result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court;'" and (3) "it must be 'likely' as opposed to
17          merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.' "

lg ————————————————
ig         ^or example, this is not a case where the President is attempting to baldly usurp the functions of the Congress or the Judiciary, e.g., declare war, or avoid proper subpoenas, and the 20  Judiciary must step in to authoritatively interpret the Constitution on the point.
''The court is not, of course, finding that the actions of the Executive Branch in executing the laws of this Nation are free from judicial scrutiny. As Franklin made clear the cabinet secretaries or other administration officials with purview over a certain governmental function may be sued in their official capacities for statutory and constitutional violations. See also Clinton v. Jones. 520 U.S. at 703, 117 S.Ct. at 1649, discussing the suit against President Truman's Secretary of Commerce (Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawver. 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863 (1952) (taking possession of private steel mills). This case, on the other hand, involves a suit against the President himself in a setting that is uniquely reserved to the Executive Branch. The courts could no more issue an injunction for alleged improprieties in a presidential inauguration than it could in commanding the Senate majority leader on how to open the Senate for business.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-7-