such is the case here. The President cannot adequately distinguish cases such as Coles v. Cleveland Brd ofEduc. 171 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1999), where the sole benefit to be received by the plaintiff was the cessation of what that plaintiff believed to be unconstitutional activity in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
The President has added one standing argument in the context of the present issue. Explaining that Newdow is an avowed atheist, and given that the issue here now centers about alleged overuse of Christian concepts, as opposed to whether prayer can be said at all, the President argues that Newdow cannot represent the rights oftheistic non-Christians. The President is correct that in the context of alleged governmental sponsorship of prayer, Newdow cannot simply represent the rights of others, Cole v. Oroville Union High School Dist.. 228 F.3d 1092,1099 (9th Cir. 2000);
he must prevail, if at all, on the fact this his own rights were violated. However, the President's premise that Newdow, as an atheist, can only be offended by prayer in general, and not "more offended" by incorporation of specific denominational concepts within prayer, is not supported by authority, or practical realities. Similarly, the President's position that Newdow can only seek a total elimination of prayer at inaugurations, and not be permitted to seek lesser relief, is also flawed.
Nevertheless, the court finds that Newdow's alleged injuries in having been exposed to Christian concepts at the Presidential inauguration could not be redressed by an injunction or declaratory relief. To the extent that enjoining the President is more correctly addressed as a standing redressability issue, the discussion of Section A is incorporated herein. And, the court could not, and should not, attempt to frame an injunction setting forth the content of permissible prayer for future presidential inaugurations.
On the latter point, the court agrees with the President's discussion of the argued speculative nature of any injunctive/declaratory relief to be awarded. The court previously found that Presidential prayer of some sort at inaugurations was a likely occurrence in the future, and that an injunction ending any prayer would "benefit" Newdow. More importantly, an all inclusive prohibitory injunction against inaugural prayer would be no more difficultto frame than a no school
-9-