1 he and his chosen speakers say? Newdow's suggestion at hearing that the Committee could be
2 ordered to ban clergy from the guest list (even if that is a function of the Committee or within its
3 authority), or not let them speak, is clearly an invalid order from a First Amendment standpoint.
4                 Finally, the court would not do indirectly in a declaratory relief action what it
5 could not do directly in an injunctive relief action. "It has long been settled that a federal court
6 has no authority 'to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
7 principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.'" Church of
8 Scientologv v. United States. 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S. Ct. 447,449 (1992). Also,
9               The Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, permits a federal court to declare the rights of a party whether or not further
10                relief is or could be sought, and we have held that under this Act declaratory relief may be available even though an injunction is
11                not. Steffel v. Thompson. 415 U.S. 452, 462, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1217, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). But we have also held that the declaratory
12                judgment statute "is an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant." Public
13               Service Comm'n v. WvcoffCo.. 344 U.S. 237,241, 73 S.Ct. 236, 239, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952). The propriety of issuing a declaratory
14               judgment may depend upon equitable considerations, see Samuels v. Mackell. 401 U.S. 66, 73, 91 S.Ct. 764. 768,27 L.Ed.2d 688
15                (1971), and is also "informed by the teachings and experience concerning the functions and extent of federal judicial power."
16               Wvcoff. supra. 344 U.S. at 243, 73 S.Ct., at 240; cf. Younger v. Hams. 401 U.S. 37, 44-45, 91 S.Ct. 746, 750-51, 27 L.Ed.2d 669
17               (1971).
18 Green v. Mansour. 474 U.S. 64, 72, 106 S. Ct. 423, 427-28 (1985).
19               Here, Newdow asks the court to intrude on the internal functioning of the
20 Executive, and also presumably for the purposes of the motion, the Congress, to declare the
21  principles that should govern future Presidents and Congresses at inaugurations. This is so
22 regardless of whether Newdow asks the court to actually fashion detailed guidelines for the
23 future, or simply issue a statement that what happened in the past 2001 Inauguration fell on the
24   \\\\\
25   \\\\\
26  \\\\\
7