1	Discussion
2	A. Motion to Amend
3	The undersigned may order the denial of a motion to amend the complaint. U.S^
4	Dominator v. Factory Ship etc. 768 F.2d 1099, 1102 (n. 1). Although the undersigned rejects the
5	first ground set forth by the President in opposition to amendment of the complaint,' the court
6	finds that Senator McConnelI, as Chairperson of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural
7	ceremonies is not appropriately sued herein, and finds the speculative nature of the relief sought
8	no different than that found for the President in the December 28 Findings and
9	Recommendations. Allowing amendment would be futile.
10	Futility of amendment is a legitimate ground for denying leave to amend if no
11	grounds for saving the claims exists under any arguable set of facts or legal theory. Schmier v.
12	Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 279 F.3d 817. 819 f9th Cir. 2002).
13	In response to the President's argument that separation of powers precludes suit
14	against Senator McConnelI, the court stated at hearing that not enough was known about the
15	nature of Senator McConnelI' s Committee for the undersigned to find that principles of
16	separation of powers precluded suit. However, upon further independent inquiry, the
17	undersigned has determined that the President is correct. The statute which formalized the
18	Congressional Joint Inaugural Committee, 36 U.S.C. § 729, was repealed in 1998. The present
19	statutory scheme for Presidential Inaugurations, 36 U.S.C. § 501 -510, did not reinstitute the
20	Congressional Committee. An Inaugural Committee appointed by the President-elect is
21	referenced therein, and that Committee by law is "in charge of the Presidential inaugural
22	ceremony and functions and activities connected with the ceremony." § 501(1). However,
23 ————————————————
' The President indicated that Newdow brought bis proposed amendment too late in the
24 case, and should be barred from proposing it at this time. However, the undersigned raised the jurisdictional point late in the case, as was his duty to do so, and Newdow did not have an
25 opportunity to consider the point in writing until objections. If the defect in jurisdiction could be cured by simply naming a different party, the court sees no procedural or equitable impediment to
26 doing so.