1	or at least sectarian prayers, at his inauguration, and also seeks to enjoin the President, in his
2	official capacity, from engaging in future "similar" acts. Newdow did not seek damages.
3	After hearing on the President's initial motion to dismiss, the undersigned found
4	that Newdow had standing to challenge the statement of prayers per se at the inauguration.
5	"Electronic" attendance was found to be the same for standing purposes as physical attendance.
6	Newdow's alleged First Amendment injury was sufficiently pled for him to proceed, and the
7	court found that an injunctive remedy directed at prayer in general would be feasible if otherwise
8	warranted. However, the undersigned further found that presidential invocations to the Deity,
9	i.e., prayers, at inaugurations were historical and commonplace. As such, the prayers in general
10	did not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. See Marsh
11	v. Champers. 463 U.S. 783, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983). Because the complaint, liberally read, also
12	attacked the content of the prayer, the further standing and merits problems involved in such a
13	prayer specific attack were noted, as well as problems in the defense of the attack. Since no party
14	had briefed the issues relating to a prayer specific attack, the undersigned deferred further
15	findings pending such briefing. The Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton adopted the findings and
16	recommendations in full in his order of September 28,2001.
17	Thereafter, the President brought a motion for summary judgment, and Newdow
18	brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues in the case. Raising a
19	jurisdictional point, the undersigned found in Findings and Recommendations issued December
20	28, 2001, that the courts had no jurisdiction to enter an injunction against the President, at that
21	time the sole defendant. The court further found that plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief fared
22	no better in this respect, and similarly, to the extent that any assertion in mandamus was made,
23	the result would be the same. Findings and Recommendations at p. 5,13 and n.9. Also, and in
24	any event, because it was not possible to frame an injunction on the type of prayer to be
25	permitted at the Presidential Inauguration, the court found that the one remaining issue in the
26	case was subject to summary judgement. See Cole v.Oroville Union High School Dist.. 228
	2