MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS O. PAINE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the appellants lacked an ascertainable legal interest in the issues raised.
Appellants challenged NASA's authorization of astronauts to participate in religious activities during space flights, alleging it constituted an uncon…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Mrs. O’Hair and others appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 We affirm.
Having reviewed the record and construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Mrs. O’Hair, we concur in the District Court’s finding: she has stated no claim which would entitle her to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80; Delaware Valley Conservation Ass’n v. Resor, 3 Cir. 1968, 392 F. 2d 331, 335-336, cert denied, 393 U.S. 915, 89 S.Ct. 239, 21 L.Ed.2d 200; Pauling v. McElroy, 1960, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 278 F. 2d 252, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 61, 5 L.Ed.2d 60. In deed, Mrs. O’Hair’s contention concerning the judicial oath — i.e., “So help me God” systematically excludes agnostics and atheists from the judiciary — approaches absurdity. Zorach v. Clauson, 1952, 343 U.S. 306, 312-313, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954; see Engel v. Vitale, 1962, 370 U.S. 421, 435 n. 21, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601. Finally appellants have no ascertainable legal interest in regard to the issues which' they raise. Flast v. Cohen, 1968, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947; see Barlow v. Collins, 1970, 397 U.S. 159, 164, 90 S.Ct. 832, 25 L.Ed.2d 192; Association of Data Processing Serv. Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 1970, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184.
Affirmed.
. Specifically she alleges that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ordered, or authorized, certain astronauts to participate in religious activities during the Apollo 8 and Apollo 11 space flights. Contending that NASA’s participation amounted to an unconstitutional abuse of legislative power, she demands injunctory relief. The Supreme Court has already disposed of Mrs. O’Hair’s three-judge court argument. O’Hair v. Paine, 1970, 397 U.S. 531, 90 S.Ct. 1259, 25 L.Ed.2d 528.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lacaze v. United States, 457 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1970)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1968)
- Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1970)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1962)
- Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1952)
- Bivins v. Gulf Oil Corp., 364 U.S. 835 (U.S. 1960)
- Linus C. Pauling v. McELROY, 278 F.2d 252 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Del. Valley Conservation Ass'n & the 604 Additional Individual v. Resor, 392 F.2d 331 (3d Cir. 1968)