Just prior to President Barack Obama's inauguration, the District Court for the District of Columbia refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the Chief Justice from administering the oath of office using the phrase "so help me God" and also refused to preliminarily enjoin clergy delivering an invocation and benediction at the ceremony. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in Newdow v. Roberts, (D DC, March 12, 2009), the court dismissed the case entirely finding that plaintiffs lack standing. It concluded that "plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that an injunction against any or all of the defendants could redress the harm alleged suffered by plaintiffs." The court also held that plaintiff Michael Newdow was precluded from litigating his standing to challenge clergy-led prayers at the inauguration because of his participation in prior litigation that unsuccessfully raised the same issue.
Two days prior to the decision, plaintiffs submitted a motion seeking to file an Amended Complaint (full text of complaint) adding 230 individual plaintiffs and adding the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Marshalls Office as defendants. The court's opinion dismissing the case said in a footnote that while it was not yet formally ruling on that motion: "the additional plaintiffs are similarly situated to the current plaintiffs, and the speculative nature about what will occur at the next two Inaugural ceremonies lacks any persuasive value." Bob Ritter, co-counsel for plaintiffs, says that an appeal of the dismissal order is planned. See press materials from Appignani Humanist Legal Center. [Thanks to Bob Ritter for the lead.]
