Lilian v. Defenders of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555,560-61,112 S.Ct. 2130,119L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
Washington Legal Foundation v. Legal Foundation of Washington. 271 F.3d 835, 847 (9th Cir. 2001) (en bane).
The President had previously argued that Newdow's lack of physical proximity to the inauguration precluded sufficient injury, that the recurrence of any Presidential prayer was speculative, and that there was no possibility of a court issuing an injunction which could adequately redress the issue of Presidential prayer per se at inaugurations, i.e., Newdow's "psychic satisfaction" at the issuance of a court order in his favor did not substitute for an adequate redress of a real injury. Nevertheless, the court initially found that Newdow had standing to contest Presidential prayer per se at inaugurations.
The President has reiterated several of his standing arguments in the context of the present issue-judicial tailoring of prayers which may otherwise be properly said at inaugurations:
(1) Newdow has not suffered sufficient injury; (2) Newdow cannot obtain redress for his injury because he would not benefit from an injunction; (3) the speculative nature of future violations of the First Amendment preclude injunctive relief; (4) Newdow lacks taxpayer standing (an issue not reached by the court before). The court again rejects arguments (1) and (2). For the reasons stated earlier, if Newdow has not suffered an injury in fact from his alleged offense at Presidential prayers, general or specific, it is difficult to understand that anyone has standing to attack governmental sponsored prayer in any forum. That is, nothing distinguishes the plaintiffs alleged injury here in any meaningful way from that in Lee v. Weisman. 505 U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992) (father objecting to the school principals use of clergymen giving invocations at his daughter's graduation from middle school). Plaintiffs seeking to halt governmental support of religion, be it verbal or symbolic, suffer the same type of injury.
Moreover, the government's first redressability argument- that Newdow could not benefit from an injunction- again presents the overbroad specter of no person being able to benefit from an injunction of improper government sponsoring of religion, assuming for the moment that
-8-