Plaintiffs did not file a separate document entitled a “motion” for summary
judgment, only a brief in support of judgment in their favor. However, the parties haveagreed that no trial is necessary and that the court may decide the case for either side on thecurrent record. Dkt. #100.
persons who object to what they view as the government’s endorsement and encouragementof prayer. In this case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the foundation and several of itsmembers are challenging the constitutionality of § 119 under the establishment clause. They seek an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. In addition, they want an order prohibitingthe President from issuing “prayer proclamations” generally and prohibiting defendantDobson from acting in concert with public officials in any way that would violate theestablishment clause. The parties’ cross motions for summary judgment are now before thecourt. Dkt. ## 79, 82 and 103.
The threshold issue is standing. This requires the plaintiffs to show that they havesuffered a “concrete” injury that is caused by each of the challenged actions and can beremedied through the relief they seek. “The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause context . . . because [that clause] is primarily aimed atprotecting non-economic interests of a spiritual, as opposed to a physical or pecuniary,nature.” Vasquez v. Los Angeles ("LA") County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007). Although the answer is not free from doubt, I conclude that, under the uniquecircumstances of this case, plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the
Case: 3:08-cv-00588-bbc Document #: 131 Filed: 03/02/2010 Page 2 of 49