Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama, 641 F.3d 803

The case treats whether § 119 National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause and whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge it.
§ 119 directs the President to issue a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer.
Plaintiffs are Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. and six members challenging the statute and proclamations; one private-actor defendant was dismissed, leaving the President and Press Secretary as respondents.
The district court held both the statute and proclamations violated the Establishment Clause and entered a declaratory judgment and injunction; the President and White House appealed.
The Seventh Circuit first addresses standing, concluding plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact because § 119 imposes duties on the President alone and creates no rights for plaintiffs to be violated.
The court analogizes to cases where observing government action or feeling excluded does not suffice for standing, emphasizing no altering of plaintiffs’ behavior or incurred costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge § 119 and proclamations	Plaintiffs contend they suffer injury-in-fact from exposure to government religious messaging.	Defendants argue only the President is addressed by § 119 and proclamations; no private right or injury to plaintiffs exists.	No standing; case dismissed for lack of justiciable controversy.

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishment clause context cited for historical practice)
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (psychological injury insufficient; standing limits)
Doe v. County of Montgomery, 41 F.3d 1156 (7th Cir. 1994) (altered behavior not required; direct exposure suffices for standing)
Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000) (standing doctrine in public religious displays)
Books v. Elkhart County, 401 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2005) (standing in subsequent display challenges)
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2004) (caution on relying on jurisdictional standing rulings)
Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (concurrence recognizing standing considerations)
Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083 (4th Cir. 1997) (standing from direct exposure to religious display)
Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) (psychological injury from exposure suffices for standing)
Foremaster v. City of St. George, 882 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1989) (no change in behavior required for standing)
Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687 (11th Cir. 1987) (no change in behavior required for standing)
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (U.S. 1974) (nonobservance injuries discussed in standing context)
Doe v. County of Montgomery, 41 F.3d 1156 (7th Cir. 1994) (reiterated exposure theory for standing)