visiting the governmental offices and the library located within the Civic Center. The Court finds that the “direct and unwelcome” contact that Plaintiff Marshall allegedly incurred from the Nativity Scene is sufficient under Sixth Circuit precedent to demonstrate an actual injury. See DeWeese, 633 F.3d at 429 (finding that an attorney who must practice law within a judge’s courtroom satisfies standing by coming into “direct and unwelcome” contact with a Ten Commandments display); Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Pub. Schs., 33 F.3d 679, 681-82 (6th Cir.1994) (finding that a student who came into contact with a portrait of Jesus in his school had suffered an actual injury because he would continue to visit the school after his graduation); Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471, 478 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the remaining elements of
holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of monument inscribed with the ten commandments placed on government land by private organization even though government did not maintain the structure holding that the disclosure of the plaintiffs dmv information to the capitol police as described in the complaint was a permissible use under the dppa holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution holding that a group of lobbyists had standing to challenge a ten commandments display at a state capitol because they would endure direct and unwelcome contact when traveling to the state capitol to engage in political advocacy holding that a political party chairman had standing to appeal a district court decision striking down state election laws even though the state board of elections had decided against appealing