where the otherwise unavailable identity of the defendant will eventually be made known through discovery. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.1980). This case is not such a situation. No amount of discovery will uncover the identities of the unnamed defendants. Therefore, by naming as defendants all persons the future President could possibly invite to administer an oath, lead a prayer, or help in the planning of these events, plaintiffs are essentially seeking a declaration of their rights accompanied by an injunction against the world. There is another name for that type of generally applicable relief: legislation. And that’s not within the power of the courts. See Chase Nat’l Bank v. City of Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431, 436-37, 54 S.Ct. 475, 78 L.Ed. 894 (1934) (<HOLDING>). The second redressability problem is that
holding  he who seeks equity must do equity  holding that ch 980 does not violate principles of equal protection holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well holding that general injunctions violate  established principles of equity jurisdiction and procedure