1	sponsored prayer injunction. See Lee v. Weisjnan. supra. However, when the issue becomes what
2	type of prayer may be spoken in the future, and the limits to which specific denominational concepts
3	may be referenced, Newdow's argument becomes highly speculative and his claimed injury
4	impossible to redress. Perhaps the next President would eschew any religious reference to a specific
5	denomination's concepts as a matter of principle. Perhaps the next President would not have
6	Reverend Graham or a like minded clergymen deliver an invocation. See Cole v. Orpville Union
7	High School District. 228 F.3d at 1100 (finding that standing of parents who might attend future
8	graduations was too tenuous given that the identity of the future speakers and their speech content
9	was speculative). Moreover, should the court limit the relief to references to Christianity? What
10	if the next President were Jewish or Muslim? Could the court in the context of the present facts issue
11	an injunction enjoining a future President from referencing specific facts unique to those religions?
12	Even if the next president were to be a professed Christian, how far could the court go in defining
13	what Christian philosophy might be referenced? Could the court develop a list of acceptable
14	invocation speakers for future inaugurations? These rhetorical questions and observations highlight
15	the speculative nature of any future "injury," and the fact that no present injunction could be
16	realistically framed to encompass future, speculative, religious inaugural invocations.8
17	C. Newdow Lacks Taxpayer Standing
18	For purposes of the previous motion, the court did not rule upon the issue of taxpayer
19	standing because Newdow was found to have ordinary standing to attack prayer per se at Presidential
20	inaugurations. However, because the court has found Newdow lacks such standing to attack the
21	content of the prayers recited at inaugurations, the issue of taxpayer standing must be addressed.
22	The President has cited a seminal taxpayer standing case, Doremus v. Board of
23	Education, 342 U.S. 429, 72S.Ct.394 (1952). See also Flast v. Cohen. 392 U.S. 83. 88 S.Ct. 1942
24
25
^f President Bush were being sued in his individual capacity, the argument made by his
26  counsel, that Newdow lacks standing because the re-election of this current President is speculative,
would have merit.
27
- 10-