Amicus Armenian Bar Association.corrected Brief
Transcript of Amicus Armenian Bar Association.corrected Brief
No. 09-2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
THEODORE GRISWOLD, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
DAVID P. DRISCOLL, Commissioner of Education, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:05-cv-12147-MLW,
Before the Honorable Mark L. Wolf, Chief District Judge
CORRECTED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ARMENIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF AMERICA, IRISH IMMIGRATION CENTER, INC., JEWISH ALLIANCE FOR LAW AND SOCIAL ACTION, INC., THE GENOCIDE EDUCATION PROJECT, AND THE ZORYAN INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY ARMENIAN
RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION, INC. SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
EDWARD J. BARSHAK (#10831) SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C. 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3030 (t) (617) 523-4001 (f)
MARK C. FLEMING (#102958) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000 (t) (617) 526-5000 (f)
January 13, 2010
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- i -
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, amici curiae
Armenian Bar Association, Irish Immigration Center, Inc., Jewish Alliance for
Law and Social Action, Inc., The Genocide Education Project, and the Zoryan
Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation, Inc., certify
that they are non-profit corporations exempt from taxation pursuant to Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that they are not publicly held
corporations and do not issue stock.
Amicus curiae Armenian National Committee of America certifies that it is a
non-profit corporation exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code and that it is not a publicly held corporation and does not
issue stock.
No amicus curiae has any parent corporation or and no publicly-held
corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of any amicus curiae.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE PURSUANT TO RULE 29(c)(3) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE..................................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................3
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5
I. THE GUIDE’S RECOGNITION AND COMMEMORATION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ARE GOVERNMENT SPEECH ...............5
II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM BECAUSE THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE DOES NOT LIMIT THE COMMONWEALTH’S ABILITY TO CHOOSE THE CONTENT OF ITS OWN SPEECH REGARDING EDUCATIONAL MATTERS ..............................................10
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................23
APPENDICES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- iii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979) .................................................................11
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998).............................................................................................................11
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) ..........................................................22, 23
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).............................................22
Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) .................................................................21, 22, 23
Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000)........................................................................................10, 20
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)................................................11
Chiras v. Miller, 432 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2005)........................................................12
Griffin v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...............20
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)..............................................................................................12
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)..................10, 20
Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009)............................................23
Miller v. California Commission on the Status of Women, 198 Cal. Rptr. 877 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) ...............................................................................15
Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 578 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) ...............21
PETA, Inc. v. Gittens, 414 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2005).........................................13, 18
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).................................................................................................10, 11, 18
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)................................................................17, 18
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- iv -
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009).................................13, 18
Sutliffe v. Epping School District, 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009)...........13, 14, 15, 20
STATUTES AND RULES
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 15II ...................................................................................8
1998 Mass. Acts ch. 276 .................................................................................. passim
Fed. R. App. P. 12(b)(6)...........................................................................................21
Fed. R. App. P. 29(a) .................................................................................................1
Gubernatorial Proclamation (Mass. Mar. 23, 1990) ..................................................8
Gubernatorial Proclamation (Mass. Feb. 19, 1986)...................................................8
H. Bill No. 3629, 181st Gen. Ct., 1997 Reg. Sess. (Mass. Jan. 1, 1997) ..................8
S.J. Res. of April 19, 1990, Mass. Gen. Ct., “On the Occasion of a Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923”.............................8
Res. of Apr. 13, 2006, Mass. Gen. Ct., “On the Occasion of the Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923” ..........................8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Levinson, Sanford, Written In Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998) .......................................................................................15, 16
Tribe, Laurence H., American Constitutional Law (1978)......................................15
Walzer, Michael, On Toleration (1997) ..................................................................16
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE PURSUANT TO RULE 29(c)(3) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
All parties have consented to the filing of this amicus brief. See Fed. R.
App. P. 29(a).
The Armenian Bar Association was formed in 1989 to provide an arena for
lawyers of Armenian heritage to address the legal concerns of the Armenian
community. The Association’s members have a strong interest in courts’
upholding lawful governmental choices to recognize the Armenian Genocide and
to educate students about the Genocide in hopes of preventing similar tragedies in
the future.
The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) is a grassroots
organization representing constituencies in Massachusetts and throughout the
United States on a broad range of genocide education, human rights, civic, and
public policy concerns. ANCA has an interest in recognition and commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide and the education of state citizens about it in hopes of
preventing future genocide.
The Irish Immigration Center, Inc. (IIC) is located in Boston. Founded in
1989 to serve the needs of the Irish immigrant community in New England, the
IIC’s work now includes immigrants from a broad range of countries. Chapter 276
of the Commonwealth’s Acts and Resolves of 1998 specifically refers to the
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 2 -
“Great Hunger Period in Ireland” as an event worthy of attention in the public
schools of the Commonwealth. IIC endorses this particular goal, but is equally
concerned that the collective memory of the other events covered by the
legislation, including the Armenian Genocide, should not be controlled by those
with an illusory denialist perspective concerning settled historical evidence.
The Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Inc. (JALSA) is a Boston-
based organization dedicated to the civil rights and liberties of all Americans.
JALSA’s members actively pursue legal and economic justice for all through
community action, litigation, and the encouragement of legislation. JALSA has
frequently filed amicus briefs in the state and federal courts in cases involving
equity of resources in public education, employment discrimination, religious
accommodation and separation of church and state. As an active supporter of
public education and quality education for all students, JALSA was active in
promoting the legislation to encourage the study of genocide in schools that
underlies the present case and worked to broaden that legislation to include
genocides of particular relevance to the diverse population of Massachusetts’s
schools. As Jews, JALSA’s members are particularly conscious of the Shoah and
efforts to deny its historicity, but they are equally aware that history has visited
catastrophes on other peoples.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 3 -
The Genocide Education Project is a nonprofit organization that assists
educators in teaching about human rights and genocide, particularly the Armenian
Genocide, by developing and distributing instructional materials, providing access
to teaching resources and organizing educational workshops.
The Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and
Documentation, Inc. is an international academic and scholarly center devoted to
the documentation, study, and dissemination of educational material related to
Armenian history and culture. The Zoryan Institute has an interest in recognition
and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide and the education of state citizens
about it in hopes of preventing future genocide.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through Chapter 276 of the Acts and
Resolves of 1998, expressed its view that major human rights violations, including
the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, are worthy of being commemorated
and taught. Chapter 276 charges the Board of Education with providing
“recommendations” and “guidelines” regarding, inter alia, materials that educators
may consult in building a curriculum on genocide and other human rights
violations. The resulting Guide to Choosing and Using Curricular Materials on
Genocide and Human Rights (the Guide) is the Commonwealth’s own expression
of its view that certain materials may be appropriate for that purpose.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 4 -
The Guide is a straightforward instance of government speech and,
accordingly, not subject to challenge under the First Amendment, which is
designed to guard against restrictions on private speech. The Commonwealth’s
message about the Armenian Genocide, expressed through the selection of
materials for inclusion in the Guide, is consistent with the position previously
taken by the Commonwealth and at least forty-one other states: that the atrocities
perpetrated upon the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923 were part of the
systematic extermination of a particular race, i.e., a genocide. Nothing in the
Guide prevents plaintiffs (or anyone else) from taking, expressing, studying, or
teaching a different view of the matter. Notably, plaintiffs do not allege that the
Commonwealth’s refusal to include genocide-denying materials in the Guide has
reduced or in any way affected their access to such materials.
Both this Court and the Supreme Court have recently reaffirmed that the
Commonwealth may decide which materials it chooses to “recommend” in its
“guidelines.” The First Amendment does not require it to include, or forbid it from
excluding, materials that express views that the Commonwealth does not wish to
espouse. If plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the content of the Commonwealth’s
speech in the Guide, their remedy is the political process, not a lawsuit. As the
district court recognized, plaintiffs in this case are “fully capable of
participating”—and did participate—in that process, through which the content of
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 5 -
government speech is properly determined. Add. 7.1 The district court correctly
dismissed the complaint, and this Court should affirm.
ARGUMENT
I. THE GUIDE’S RECOGNITION AND COMMEMORATION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ARE GOVERNMENT SPEECH
Chapter 276 of the Acts and Resolves of 1998 (Chapter 276) directs the
Massachusetts Board of Education to “formulate recommendations on curricular
material on genocide and human rights issues, and guidelines for the teaching of
such material” that would be available “to all school districts in the commonwealth
on an advisory basis.” Chapter 276 identified several specific examples of topics
that might be included in such a curriculum: “the period of the transatlantic slave
trade and the middle passage, the great hunger period in Ireland, the Armenian
[G]enocide, the [H]olocaust and the Mussolini fascist regime and other recognized
human rights violations and genocides.” Id.
The Massachusetts legislature thus directed the Board of Education to issue
guidelines that would implement the Commonwealth’s judgment regarding the
importance of educating Massachusetts students about “recognized human rights
violations and genocides,” such as the “Armenian [G]enocide.” Id. The Board
complied with Chapter 276’s mandate by developing and promulgating the
1 Citations to “Add.” refer to the Addendum to the Brief of Plaintiff-Appellants; citations to “A__” refer to Appellants’ Appendix.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 6 -
Massachusetts Guide to Choosing and Using Curricular Materials on Genocide
and Human Rights (the Guide).
Echoing Chapter 276, the Guide states at its outset that it “offers
recommendations for locating and selecting curriculum materials on genocide and
human rights issues, and guidelines for the teaching of such materials.” A218
(emphasis added). The Guide also repeats the Commonwealth’s view that
Massachusetts students should be taught history to educate them about their role
and responsibilities as citizens: “Knowing the past is a precondition to making
responsible choices in the present.’” A227 (quoting the Department of Education’s
History and Social Science Framework). With respect to the history of genocide in
particular, the Guide states the following position of the Commonwealth:
Learning about genocide in history and its persistence into the present day is important for today’s students. Although most students learn about the Nazi Holocaust, they may regard it as an isolated phenomenon, and do not learn that many such incidents of intentional mass killings have occurred all over the world and throughout history.
…
In the study of genocide and human rights issues, students and their teachers confront some of the most difficult and dreadful aspects of human behavior: hatred, prejudice, cruelty, suffering, legalized discrimination, and mass murder. The study of episodes such as the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust often causes students and teachers to question why such atrocities occurred, whether they could occur elsewhere, and how they might be prevented.
A218, 219.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 7 -
To this end, the Guide contains recommendations of specific materials that
teachers may (but need not) consult in building a curriculum. The Guide states that
“[t]he Massachusetts Department of Education does not endorse or mandate any
curriculum materials, but offers the guidelines below.” A232 (emphasis added).
The Guide then provides a series of recommended criteria for educators to consider
in choosing curricular materials (A232-233), questions that Internet users should
ask in conducting independent research (A233), and a selection of resources for
teaching about genocide and human rights issues (A233-238). The Guide therefore
contains the Commonwealth’s affirmative expression of its view that
Massachusetts educators should teach the history of human rights violations and
provides “recommendations” (or “guidelines”) as to how educators could construct
such a curriculum.
By the same token, the Commonwealth does not recommend materials that
deny the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, just as it does not recommend
materials that deny the occurrence of the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, or
the Mussolini fascist regime. To do so would undermine the Commonwealth’s
stated message that past genocides and human rights violations should be studied
for insight into “why such atrocities occurred, whether they could occur elsewhere,
and how they might be prevented.” A219; see also Add. 3-4 (district court
opinion).
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 8 -
The Commonwealth’s message about the Armenian Genocide, as expressed
in Chapter 276 and the Guide, is consistent with the official position expressed by
both the legislative and executive branches of the Massachusetts state government
long before the passage of Chapter 276 and dating back to at least 1978. See, e.g.,
Res. of Apr. 13, 2006, Mass. Gen. Ct., “On the Occasion of the Day of
Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923”; H. Bill No. 3629,
181st Gen. Ct., 1997 Reg. Sess. (Mass. Jan. 1, 1997) (“An Act Relative To The
Instruction Of The Great Hunger Period in Ireland, The Armenian Genocide, And
The Holocaust”); S.J. Res. of April 19, 1990, Mass. Gen. Ct., “On the Occasion of
a Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923”; Gubernatorial
Proclamation (Mass. Mar. 23, 1990) (“Since 1915, April 24th of every year has
been imprinted in the memory of the Armenian people worldwide. It was then that
the mass genocide of the Armenian people began in the Ottoman Turkish
Empire …. Our prayers … will serve to remind governments of the world that
persecution, torture, and killing must cease forever.”); Gubernatorial Proclamation
(Mass. Feb. 19, 1986) (similar); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 15II (“The governor
shall annually issue a proclamation setting apart the twenty-fourth day of April as
Armenian Martyrs’ Day, and recommending that said day be observed in an
appropriate manner by the people.”).
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 9 -
Massachusetts is not alone in its determination that the events of 1915-1923
were genocide and should be acknowledged and commemorated as such. At least
forty-one other states have explicitly recognized the Armenian Genocide, whether
by legislative resolution, executive proclamation or both; often such resolutions or
proclamations are renewed annually. See Appendix A (listing official recognitions
by U.S. states). Recognition of the Armenian Genocide has been similarly
widespread abroad. See Appendix B (listing official recognitions by foreign
governments).
However, it is undisputed that the Commonwealth does not require any
student to agree that the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were in fact
genocide, just as it does not compel teachers to employ, or students to read, any of
the materials recommended in the Guide. It certainly does not forbid teachers or
students from accessing, reading, or teaching materials other than those
recommended in the Guide and that may deny that the Holocaust or the Armenian
Genocide ever happened. As the district court found, plaintiffs have never alleged
that the Guide has impeded their access to whatever materials they would choose
to study or teach. Add. 20 (complaint does not allege that “either the student or
teacher plaintiffs has been denied access in school to the contra-genocide websites
that were removed from the Curriculum Guide or comparable information”).
Appellants do not challenge this conclusion on appeal. Accordingly, this Court’s
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 10 -
review proceeds on the settled proposition that the Guide does not affect the ability
of students and educators to examine, study, or teach any material, including the
genocide-denying materials plaintiffs have put forward.2
II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM BECAUSE THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE DOES NOT LIMIT THE COMMONWEALTH’S ABILITY TO CHOOSE THE CONTENT OF ITS OWN SPEECH REGARDING EDUCATIONAL MATTERS
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the Government’s own speech
… is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.” Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n,
544 U.S. 550, 553 (2005). Accordingly, “when the State is the speaker, it may
make content-based choices.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995). These choices include the discretion to control what
is—or, as here, “what … is not expressed”—when the government is the speaker.
Id. “It is inevitable that government will adopt and pursue programs and policies
within its constitutional powers but which nevertheless are contrary to the
profound beliefs and sincere convictions of some of its citizens.” Board of Regents
of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 229 (2000).
2 In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged only that they “may be denied the opportunity to receive contra-genocide viewpoints in school.” A39 (emphasis added). Given that the original student plaintiffs who brought this case in 2005 have presumably graduated by now, one would have expected that any actual denial of access to genocide-denying viewpoints could and would have been alleged.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 11 -
The Commonwealth’s chosen message in the Guide is particularly worthy of
protection from First Amendment challenge because of the educational context in
which it arose. As the district court correctly recognized, “decisions concerning
the content of public education are, except in limited circumstances not applicable
here, to be left to the exercise of discretion by state and local officials rather than
made by federal judges.” Add. 29-30 (collecting cases). Public education “fulfills
a most fundamental obligation of government to its constituency” by preparing
students “for participation as citizens” and by “preserv[ing]” the “values on which
our society rests.” Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 (1979) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In addition to its importance in acquainting students with their
environment and preparing them for a productive life in society, education is “the
very foundation of good citizenship.… [I]t is a principal instrument in awakening
the child to cultural values.” Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954);
see also Arkansas Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 674 (1998)
(comparing a broadcaster’s permissible content-based choices to “a university
selecting a commencement speaker … or a public school prescribing its
curriculum”); Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833 (noting that when the state
“determines the content of the education it provides, it is the [state] speaking, and
we have permitted the government to regulate the content of what is or is not
expressed when it is the speaker”).
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 16 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 12 -
For this reason, government speech principles apply with particular force in
the educational context. For example, Chiras v. Miller, 432 F.3d 606, 609-610
(5th Cir. 2005), properly relied upon by the district court, involved an
environmental science textbook that had been rejected by the Commissioner of
Education for use in public schools after “conservative think-tank organizations”
had requested and received a reopening of the period for public comment. Id. The
Fifth Circuit held that the state’s selection of textbooks for use in the curriculum
was “to facilitate transmission of its own approved message” and that the
textbook’s author had no right of access to the curriculum. Id. at 616. So too here.
The state must be free to “recommend,” “guide,” or “advise” the use of particular
materials and not others when it is acting as speaker. To hold otherwise would
forcibly dilute the government’s ability to educate and influence its citizens in the
manner contemplated by our system of public education.
The fact that the Guide consists in part of recommendations of the speech of
third parties does not make the Guide any less government speech. The state need
not “generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication” in
order to be regarded as a speaker entitled to convey its message. Hurley v. Irish-
American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995).
For example, “‘compilation of the speech of third parties’ is a communicative act,”
and by applying its discretion in the selection and presentation of particular
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 17 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 13 -
materials, a government entity engages in speech activity. PETA, Inc. v. Gittens,
414 F.3d 23, 28 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Forbes, 523 U.S. at 674).
This Court rejected a First Amendment challenge in a recent case with facts
strikingly similar to this one. In Sutliffe v. Epping School District, 584 F.3d 314
(1st Cir. 2009), a town’s board of selectmen had included a link on the town
website to an external site promoting a community event, but then refused a
request by the plaintiff that the town provide a link to the plaintiff’s own web page,
which expressed contrary views. Id. at 318-319. The plaintiff alleged that, by
posting an external link, the town had converted its own website into a designated
public forum and engaged in improper viewpoint discrimination. Id. at 323-324.
This Court rejected that argument, holding that the town’s actions “in setting up
and controlling a town website and choosing not to allow the [plaintiff’s]
hyperlinks, constituted government speech.” Id. at 329.
The Court was emphatic that a government entity “is entitled to say what it
wishes” and “to select the views that it wants to express.” 584 F.3d at 330
(internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “when the government uses its
discretion to select between the speech of third parties for presentation through
communication channels owned by the government and used for government
speech, this in itself may constitute an expressive act by the government that is
independent of the message of the third-party speech.” Id. (citing Pleasant Grove
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 18 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 18 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 14 -
City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125, 1131, 1133-1136 (2009)). Finally, the majority
rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the government speech doctrine by treating
the website as a public forum. As the Court noted, such an approach would “risk
flooding the Town website with private links, thus making it impossible for the
Town to effectively convey its own message and defeating the very purpose of the
website and the hyperlinks chosen by the Town.” Id. at 334.
Plaintiffs’ only response is to distort their own allegations. They accuse the
Commonwealth of “censorship” (Br. 20)—a claim utterly unsupported by the
complaint, which (as noted above) undisputedly does not allege that the Guide has
affected anyone’s access to any materials, much less “censor[ed]” any of them.
Similarly, the claim that the Commonwealth’s recommendation of materials
suitable for teaching the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust constitutes an
“imposition of orthodoxy by political fiat in contravention of the First
Amendment” (id. at 21) is, when stripped of its rhetoric, merely a disagreement
with settled government speech jurisprudence. As Sutliffe makes plain, the
government may express its own views and recommendations on an issue of public
concern without violating the First Amendment. As the district court rightly
pointed out, “[f]ailing to include the websites among materials which may be
presented to students is not tantamount to restricting access to them.” Add. 20.
Because Appellants’ complaint did not allege that they were denied access to the
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 19 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 15 -
contra-genocide materials excluded from the Guide, or that a single teacher or
student was prevented from expressing a contra-genocide viewpoint in school, no
First Amendment interest is implicated. See Miller v. Cal. Comm’n on the Status
of Women, 198 Cal. Rptr. 877, 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (noting the distinction—
critical for First Amendment purposes—between the government’s addition of its
own voice and the government’s silencing of others (citing Laurence H. Tribe,
American Constitutional Law 588 (1978))).
Like the hyperlinks in Sutliffe, the Commonwealth’s selection of materials
for inclusion in the Guide constituted its own speech. “That government must
regulate expressive activity with an even hand if it regulates such activity at all
does not mean that government must be ideologically neutral.” Miller, 198 Cal.
Rptr. at 882 (internal quotation marks omitted). Through a set of policies—
including legislative resolutions, Chapter 276, and the Guide—Massachusetts, like
many other governments, has chosen to commemorate the Armenian Genocide.
“To commemorate is to take a stand, to declare the reality of heroes (or heroic
events) worthy of emulation or, less frequently, that an event that occurred at a
particular place was indeed so terrible that it must be remembered forever after as a
cautionary note.” Sanford Levinson, Written In Stone: Public Monuments in
Changing Societies 137 (1998). The commemorative function lies at the core of
government’s use of speech to transmit expressive messages, which may include
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 20 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 16 -
“the full set of political doctrines, historical narratives, exemplary figures,
celebratory occasions, and memorial rituals through which the state impresses
itself on the minds of its members.” Michael Walzer, On Toleration 76 (1997).
In selecting those events or ideas that they will celebrate, commemorate, or
endorse, governments in the United States are not required to give equal
recognition to opposite or even different points of view. Without this basic
freedom to choose the content of their official messages, governments would lose
the ability to express views on the importance of various historical events. For
instance, the City of Boston has chosen to display monuments that commemorate
several events identified by Chapter 276 as “recognized human rights violations
and genocides”:
• The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ monument on Boston Common states: “To the
Men of Boston/Who Died for their country/On Land and Sea in the
War/Which Kept the Union Whole/Destroyed Slavery/And Maintained the
Constitution/The Grateful City Has Built this Monument/That Their
Example May Speak to Coming Generations”;3
3 See Levinson 57 (photograph of the monument).
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 21 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 21 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 17 -
• The 54th Regiment Memorial on Boston Common near the corner of Beacon
and Park Streets celebrates the first African-American regiment in the Civil
War;
• The Irish Famine Memorial monument stands at the corner of Washington
and School Streets in downtown Boston;
• The Boston National Historic Park maintains the site housing the New
England Holocaust Memorial.4
Boston, while displaying these monuments, is not required to erect
monuments to other human rights violations that many may consider no less
worthy of commemoration, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the massacre of
Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, or the millions of deaths caused by Joseph Stalin
or Mao Zedong. Boston is certainly not required to match its remembrance of
fallen Union troops and Holocaust victims with memorials to the Confederacy and
the Third Reich. See, e.g., Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 194 (1991) (“When
Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other
countries to adopt democratic principles, it was not constitutionally required to
fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as
communism and fascism.” (citation omitted)).
4 See http://www.nehm.com/intro.html.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 22 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 22 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 18 -
The official recommendations expressed by the Commonwealth regarding
curricular materials are no less protected from First Amendment challenge than the
city government’s decision to recognize and remember particular historical events
in monuments. In the Guide, as in a monument, the Commonwealth has the
governmental authority to determine which messages it does and does not express
and what other materials it does and does not recommend. See Rosenberger, 515
U.S. at 833. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd and untenable results such as
requiring a National Endowment for Communism (Rust, 500 U.S. at 194), or
placement of a statute of Robert E. Lee next to every statute of Ulysses S. Grant
(PETA, 414 F.3d at 29).
Plaintiffs fasten onto the fact that the recommendations in the Guide are not
“mandatory” (Appellants’ Br. 24), but that does not change the analysis.
Monuments are not mandatory either; they do not require citizens to take any
particular action and, indeed, the governmental message they convey may vary
with each observer. Summum, 129 S. Ct. at 1135. Yet their non-mandatory nature
does not make them any less government speech, nor does it give plaintiffs any
First Amendment right to insist on judicial control of their content. The same is
true of the “advisory” message expressed in the Guide; that it reflects the
Commonwealth’s “advice” or “guidance” regarding potential curricular materials,
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 23 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 23 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 19 -
rather than an unequivocal command, does not make it any less the
Commonwealth’s message.
Similarly, plaintiffs’ allegations that the Guide’s proposed content changed
part-way through the process, such that references to plaintiffs’ desired materials
were initially included and then removed (see, e.g., Appellants’ Br. 19-20), does
not change the fact that the final Guide reflects the Commonwealth’s chosen
message. It would be nonsensical if the government were free to make content-
based decisions in choosing its message only in its first draft, but had no freedom
to revise the message thereafter. The fact that contra-genocide materials were at
one point included in the draft Guide did not somehow estop the government from
reconsidering the content of its speech going forward; if it did, then removal of any
material from the Guide could spawn additional litigation. Notably, the Board also
removed certain non-denialist materials from the Guide in response to objections
by a Turkish group; were this Court to accept plaintiffs’ view of the law, that
decision could be challenged as well. See, e.g., A97 (Letter from Commissioner
Driscoll to TACS-NE President identifying certain non-denialist materials that
were also included and then removed from the Guide); see also Appellees’ Br. 10
(discussing removal of non-denialist materials as a result of lobbying by a Turkish
group). And the allegation that the change occurred through “political” means
(Appellants’ Br. 20-21) does not advance plaintiffs’ case at all. On the contrary, it
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 24 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 24 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 20 -
is precisely through political mechanisms (not judicial ones) that the content of
government speech should be determined. See Sutliffe, 584 F.3d at 331 n.9; Add.
7, 29-30 (district court opinion).5
If citizens—including plaintiffs—are dissatisfied with what the government
chooses to say, their recourse is the political process. Southworth, 529 U.S. at 235
(“When the government speaks, … it is, in the end, accountable to the electorate
and the political process for its advocacy.”). “Democracy, in other words, ensures
that government is not untouchable when its speech rubs against the First
Amendment interests of those who object to supporting it; if enough voters
disagree with what the government says, the next election will cancel the
message.” Johanns, 544 U.S. at 575 (Souter, J., dissenting); accord Griffin v.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309, 1324-1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The
government is entitled to full control over its own speech, whether it speaks with
its own voice or enlists private parties to convey its message, and the remedy for
dissatisfaction with its choices is political rather than judicial.”). Indeed, as the
district court recognized (Add. 7, 30-31), the record in this case shows that
denialist groups are well aware of how to use the political process to their
advantage, and indeed did so in this case by lobbying for the inclusion of denialist
5 Government speech may also be limited by the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or other constitutional provisions. Sutliffe, 584 F.3d at 331 n.9. No such claim is raised in this case.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 25 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 25 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 21 -
materials that were not in the first draft of the Guide. See, e.g., A93-112 (Compl.
Exs. 2-7).6
The plurality opinion in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free
School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), does not compel a different
result, and this Court can affirm the district court here without questioning Pico’s
precedential value. Even taking the well-pleaded allegations in this complaint as
true, this case falls well outside Pico because the choice of materials for inclusion
in an advisory curricular Guide does not affect any student’s or teacher’s “access”
to any particular ideas or materials. Id. at 868 (plurality opinion). Plaintiffs are
wrong to suggest that the district court was required to accept as true the
“allegation” that the Guide was “liken[ed] … to an electronic school library” and
thus governed by Pico. Appellants’ Br. 12. Rule 12(b)(6) only requires the district 6 Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Massachusetts’s statements that the Armenian Genocide should be recognized and taught could somehow be “preempted” (Br. 20-21) is meritless. Plaintiffs never asserted a preemption claim below, so the issue is not before this Court. Moreover, the decision plaintiffs cite involved a California statute that extended the limitations period for certain causes of action arising out of the Armenian Genocide, which a divided Ninth Circuit panel held was preempted by the federal foreign affairs power. Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 578 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit nowhere suggested that the preemption doctrine could prevent a state from engaging in government speech recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, the Movsesian panel specifically did not consider the numerous state resolutions and enactments doing just that (see Appendix A); rather, the court noted that the parties had not cited such materials. See Movsesian, 578 F.3d at 1061-1062. Amici Armenian Bar Association, Armenian National Committee of America, and Zoryan Institute have submitted a brief in support of a petition for rehearing in Movsesian.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 26 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 26 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 22 -
court to take well-pleaded facts as true; it is not required to accept plaintiffs’ legal
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-1950 (2009) (“[T]he
tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint
is inapplicable to legal conclusions .… Although for the purposes of a motion to
dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we ‘are
not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’”
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007))). The statement
that the Guide is “indistinguishable from a school library” (Appellants’ Br. 2) is
just that—a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs’ own amicus calls it a “contention.”
ACLU of Massachusetts Br. 5. The district court properly rejected that contention
because the factual allegations in the complaint do not support treating the Guide
like a library. Among other reasons, the complaint does not allege that the Guide,
a publication of the state Board of Education, occupies the same or a similar
position to a library, whose “unique role” is as a “regime of voluntary inquiry”
separate from the “compulsory environment of the classroom.” Pico, 457 U.S. at
869. Exclusion of materials from the Guide was never alleged to have “den[ied]
[students] access to ideas with which [the Commonwealth] disagreed.” Id. at 871;
see Add. 22-23 (district court opinion). Unlike the students in Pico, plaintiffs
retain exactly the same ability to read and consult the genocide-denying materials
as they would have if the Guide had never been published. The ability of local
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 27 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 27 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 23 -
school committees and teachers to shape their own curriculum is likewise
unaffected by the Guide. Thus, the district court was fully entitled to conclude that
plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to bring this case within the sphere of
Pico, notwithstanding their conclusory legal assertion to the contrary. Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. at 1950; see also Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 268, 273-274 (1st
Cir. 2009) (applying Iqbal).
The Guide, developed for use in public education pursuant to a legislative
mandate, neither compels nor curtails any private speech, nor does it restrict
anyone’s right to access denialist materials. Plaintiffs remain free to ignore the
Guide’s recommended resources, to read materials that express contrary views, and
to express such views themselves, just as they may ignore the Holocaust Memorial,
read books that side with the Confederacy, or deny the relevance of the Irish
Famine to our national heritage. But they cannot force the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to issue a recommendation in favor of materials denying that the
Armenian Genocide occurred.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be
affirmed.
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 28 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 28 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 24 -
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark C. Fleming
MARK C. FLEMING (NO. 102958) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000 (t) (617) 526-5000 (f)
Counsel for the Armenian Bar Association, Armenian National Committee of America, The Genocide Education Project, and the Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation
/s/ Edward J. Barshak EDWARD J. BARSHAK (NO. 10831) SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C. 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3030 (t) (617) 523-4001 (f) Counsel for Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action and Irish Immigration Center
January 13, 2010
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 29 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 29 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
APPENDIX A
Selected State Authorities Officially Recognizing The Armenian Genocide1
State Citation
Alaska Legis. Resolve No. 13, Source SR-20 (Alaska 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Alaska Apr. 19, 1990)
Arizona Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ariz. Apr. 23, 1990)
Arkansas Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ark. Mar. 27, 2001)
California Assemb. Con. Res. 78, 1967-68 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 15, 1968) Assemb. J. Res. 14, 1978-89 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Mar. 6, 1979) Assemb. Con. Res. 130, 1979-80 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 18, 1980) Assemb. Con. Res. 51, 1980-81 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 23, 1981) Assemb. J. Res. 73, 1989-90 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Mar. 13, 1990) S. Res. 19, 1991-92 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 11, 1991) Assemb. J. Res. 84, 1993-94 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 24, 1994) Assemb. Con. Res. 19, 1995-96 Reg. Sess. (Cal. May 4, 1995) Assemb. Con. Res. 26, 1995-96 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 24, 1995) Assemb. Con. Res. 82, 1995-96, Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 24, 1996) Assemb. Con. Res. 51, 1997-98 Reg. Sess. (Cal. May 7, 1997) Assemb. Con. Res. 138, 1997-98 Reg. Sess.. (Cal. Apr. 23, 1998) Assemb. Con. Res. 20, 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Cal. May 3, 1999) S. Con. Res. 62, 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Cal. May 11, 2000) S.J. Res. 5, 2001-02 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 30, 2001) Assemb. J. Res. 44, 2001-02 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 26, 2002) S.J. Res. 1, 2003-04 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Apr. 10, 2003)
1 This list is not intended to be exhaustive. For a more complete list, please see Armenian National Institute, International Affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, http://www.armenian-genocide.org/affirmation.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2009).
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 30 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 30 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 2 -
Cal. Gov’t Code § 6720 (2005) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 8, 1986) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 2, 1987) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 18, 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 16, 1991) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 22, 1994) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 2, 1997) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 20, 2000) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 11, 2001) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 3, 2003) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 22, 2004) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 24, 2005) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 21, 2006) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 6, 2007) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 7, 2008) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Cal. Apr. 13, 2009)
Colorado S.J. Res. 22, 63d Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 24, 2002)H.J. Res. 1049, 64th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 24, 2003) H.J. Res. 1050, 64th Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 16, 2004) S.J. Res. 22, 65th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 24, 2005)S.J. Res. 23, 65th Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 10, 2006) S.J. Res. 30, 66th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 24, 2007)S.J. Res. 24, 66th Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 24, 2008) S.J. Res. 41, 67th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 24, 2009) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Colo. Mar. 14, 1990)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 31 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 31 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 3 -
Connecticut Gubernatorial Proclamation (Conn. Apr. 24, 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Conn. Apr. 24, 2001) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Conn. Apr. 26, 2008) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Conn. Apr. 25, 2009)
Delaware Sen. Con. Res. 19, 138th Gen. Assemb. (Del. Apr. 11, 1995) H. Res. 14, 144th Gen. Assemb. (Del. Apr. 5, 2007)
Florida Gubernatorial Proclamation (Fla. Apr. 27, 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Fla. Apr. 7, 2006)
Georgia S. Res. 118, 145th Gen. Assemb., 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Ga. Feb. 8, 1999)
Hawaii H.R. Res. 192, 25th Leg. (Haw. Apr. 6, 2009)
Idaho Gubernatorial Proclamation (Idaho Apr. 20, 2004)
Illinois H.R. Res. 1470, 86th Gen. Assemb., 1989-90 Reg. Sess. (Ill. Apr. 3, 1990) S. Res. 870, 86th Gen. Assemb., 1989-90 Reg. Sess. (Ill. Apr. 5, 1990) S. Res. 50, 89th Gen. Assemb., 1995-96 Reg. Sess. (Ill. Apr. 20, 1995) H.R. Res. 113, 90th Gen. Assemb., 1997-98 Reg. Sess. (Ill. Apr. 24, 1997) 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27-20.3 (2005) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ill. Apr. 19, 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ill. Mar. 23, 1999) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ill. Apr. 27, 2000) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ill. Mar. 11, 2005)
Kansas Gubernatorial Declaration (Kan. Apr. 20, 2005)
Kentucky Gubernatorial Declaration (Ky. Apr. 28, 2008)
Louisiana Gubernatorial Proclamation (La. Apr. 18, 2004)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 32 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 32 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 4 -
Maine H.R.J. Res. 1204, 119th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Me. Apr. 7, 2000) H.R.J. Res. 1373, 120th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. June 13, 2001)
Maryland H.R. J. Res. 3, 415th Gen. Assemb., 2001 Reg. Sess. (Md. May 18, 2001) S.J. Res. 5, 2001 Reg. Sess. (Md. Mar. 26, 2001) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Md. Apr. 24, 1987) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Md. Apr. 24, 1990)
Massachusetts S. J. Res. of April 19, 1990, Mass. Gen. Ct. (Mass. Apr. 19, 1990) H. Bill No. 3629, 181st Gen. Ct., 1997 Reg. Sess. (Mass. Apr. 24, 1997) Mass. Gen. Ct. (Mass. 2006) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 15II (1978) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Mass. Feb. 19, 1986) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Mass. Mar. 23, 1990)
Michigan H.R. Con. Res. 640 (Mich. Mar. 27, 1990) H. Res. 74, 90th Leg., 1999 Reg. Sess. (Mich. Apr. 22, 1999) S. Res. 44, 90th Leg., 1999 Reg. Sess. (Mich. Apr. 20, 1999) Act No. 558, 91st Leg., 2002 Reg. Sess. (Mich. Aug. 28, 2002) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Mich. Mar. 13, 1986) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Mich. Apr. 16, 1990)
Minnesota Gubernatorial Proclamation (Minn. Mar. 16, 2001) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Minn. Apr. 20, 2005)
Missouri H. Con. Res. 4, 91st Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mo. May 8, 2002)
Montana Letter from Mont. Governor to Armenian Nat’l Comm. of Am. (Apr. 2004)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 33 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 33 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 5 -
Nebraska Gubernatorial Proclamation (Neb. Apr. 23, 2004)
Nevada Gubernatorial Proclamation (Nev. Apr. 11, 2000)
New Hampshire
S. Res. 7, 1990 Sess. (N.H. Apr. 24, 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.H. Apr. 22, 2005)
New Jersey Gen. Assemb. Res. (N.J. Apr. 1, 1975) Assemb. J. Res. 113 (N.J. Apr. 5, 1990) Assemb. J. Res. 125, 211th Leg. (N.J. May 5, 2005) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.J. Apr. 7, 1986) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.J. Apr. 1, 2002) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.J. Mar. 15, 2004) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.J. Apr. 18, 2006) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.J. Apr. 24, 2007)
New Mexico S.J. Mem’l 34,. 45th Leg., 1st Sess. 2001 (N.M. Mar. 10, 2001) H.J. Mem’l 117, 46th Leg., 1st Sess. 2003 (N.M. Mar. 13, 2003) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.M. Apr. 24, 2006)
New York Assembly Res. 776 (N.Y. Apr. 4, 1986) S. Legis. Res. 810 (N.Y. May 6, 1986) Legis. Res. 753, S. Res. 927 (N.Y. May 5, 1987) Legis. Res. J4589 (N.Y. Apr. 19, 2002) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 21, 1987) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 24, 1999) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 17, 2000) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 21, 2001) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 22, 2002) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 24, 2004)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 34 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 34 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 6 -
Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 19, 2006) Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.Y. Apr. 24, 2009)
North Carolina
Gubernatorial Proclamation (N.C. Apr. 23, 1999)
North Dakota H.R. Con. Res. 3003, 60th Leg. Assemb., 2007 Reg. Sess. (N.D. Apr. 5, 2007)
Oklahoma S. Con. Res. 68 (Okla. Mar. 26, 1990)
Ohio Gubernatorial Proclamation (Ohio Apr. 17, 2007)
Oregon Gubernatorial Proclamation (Or. Apr. 23, 1990)
Pennsylvania H.R. Res. 110, 181st Gen. Assemb., 1997-98 Reg. Sess. (Pa. Apr. 14, 1997) H.R. Res. 361, 182d Gen. Assemb., 1997-98 Reg. Sess. (Pa. Mar. 16, 1998) H.R. Res. 94, 1999 Sess. (Pa. Apr. 12, 1999) H.R. Res. 427, 2000 Sess. (Pa. Apr. 18, 2000) H.R. Con. Res. 112 (Pa. May 2, 2001) H.R. Con. Res. 593, 2004 Sess. (Pa. Mar. 15, 2004) H.R. Con. Res. 172, 2005 Sess. (Pa. Mar. 28, 2005) Gubernatorial Proclamation (Pa. Apr. 19, 1990)
Rhode Island S. Res. (R.I. Apr. 4, 1990) H.R. Res. 4035, 92d Gen. Assemb. (R.I. Apr. 27, 1990) H.R. Res. 9021, 96th Gen. Assemb. (R.I. Apr. 24, 1996) H.R. Res. 6824, 1997-98 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 24, 1997) H.R. Res. 9016 (R.I. Apr. 23, 1998) H.R. Res. 6428, 99th Gen. Assemb., 1999-2000 Leg. Sess. (R.I. 1999) H.R. Res. 8161, 1999-2000 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 12, 2000) S. Res. 2916, 1990-2000 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 13, 2000)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 35 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 35 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 7 -
H.R. Res. 6344, 2001-02 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 24, 2001) S. Res. 917, 2001-02 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 24, 2001) H.R. Res. 8056, 2001-02 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 24, 2002) S. Res. 2958, 2001-02 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 24, 2002) H.R. Res. 6336, 2003-04 Leg. Sess. (R.I. Apr. 10, 2003) H.R. Res. 7039 (R.I. Jan. 8, 2004) S. Res. 3016 (R.I. Apr. 22, 2004) H.R. Res. 6320 (R.I. Apr. 11, 2005) S. Res. 1030 (R.I. Apr. 27, 2005) R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-22-22 (2005) H.R. Res. 8013 (R.I. Apr. 12, 2006) S. Res. 3011 (R.I. Apr. 12, 2006) H.R. Res. 6307 (R.I. July 13, 2007) S. Res. 0936 (R.I. Apr. 27, 2007) H.R. Res. 8205 (R.I. Apr. 24, 2008) S. Res. 2987 (R.I. Apr. 24, 2008) Gubernatorial Proclamation (R. I. June 29, 1990) Gubernatorial Proclamation (R.I. Apr. 24, 2005) Gubernatorial Proclamation (R.I. Apr. 24, 2006) Gubernatorial Proclamation (R.I. Apr. 24, 2008)
South Carolina
H.R. Con. Res. 3618, Gen. Assemb., 113th Sess. (S.C. Apr. 24, 1999)
Tennessee Gubernatorial Proclamation (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2004)
Utah Gubernatorial Proclamation (Utah Apr. 2001)
Vermont Gubernatorial Proclamation (Vt. Apr. 24, 2004)
Virginia Certificate of Recognition (Va. Apr. 24, 1990) H.R.J. Res. 298, 2000 Sess. (Va. Mar. 9, 2000)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 36 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 36 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 8 -
Gubernatorial Proclamation (Va. Apr. 24, 1990) Gubernatorial Cert. of Recog. (Va. Apr. 24, 1996) Gubernatorial Cert. of Recog. (Va. Apr. 24, 2002)
Washington Gubernatorial Proclamation (Wash. Apr. 20, 1990)
Wisconsin S.J. Res. 71 (Wis. Jan. 30, 1990) Assemb. J. Res. 31, 92d Leg. Sess., 1995-96 Reg. Sess. (Wis. Apr. 3, 1995) Assemb. Res. 42 (Wis. May 2, 2000) S. Res. 14, 95th Leg. Sess., 2001-02 Reg. Sess. (Wis. Feb. 20, 2002)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 37 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 37 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 9 -
APPENDIX B
Foreign Recognition of the Armenian Genocide2
Foreign Government or Organization
Official Recognition
Argentina Proyecto de Declaración [S. Decl.] 664/03 (Aug. 20, 2003) (Arg.)
Australia N.S.W. Parl. Res. of Apr. 17, 1997 (Austl.)
Belgium S. Res. 1-736/3, 1997-1998 Sess. (Mar. 26, 1998) (Belg.)
Canada H.C. Res., Private Members’ Bus. M-380 (Apr. 21, 2004) (Can.)
Cyprus H.R. Res. of Apr. 29, 1982 (Cyprus)
France Loi no. 2001-70 de L’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat [Nat’l Assemb. and S.L. No. 2001-70], J.O. 1590 (Jan. 29, 2001) (Fr.)
Greece Hellenic Parl. Res. 2397/1996 (Apr. 25, 1996) (Greece)
Lebanon Chamber of Deputies Parl. Res. of May 11, 2000 (Leb.)
Russia State Duma Res. of Apr. 14, 1995, Fed. Assemb. of Russian Fed’n (Russ.)
Sweden Res. of Parl. Standing Comm. on Foreign Affairs of Mar. 29, 2000, reported by For. Ministry (Swed.)
Switzerland Nat’l Council Res. 02.3069 (Dec. 16, 2003) (Switz.)
Uruguay S. & H.R. Bill No. 17.752 (Mar. 26, 2004) (Uru.)
2 This list is not intended to be exhaustive. For a more complete list, please see Armenian National Institute, International Affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, http://www.armenian-genocide.org/affirmation.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2009).
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 38 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 38 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
- 10 -
European Union Report of the Political Affairs Committee on a Political Solution to the Armenian Question, Eur. Parl. Doc. A2-33/87 (Apr. 15, 1987) (“[T]he tragic events in 1915-1917 involving the Armenians living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire constitute genocide within the meaning of the convention on the prevention and the punishment of the crime of genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948.”) Council of Eur. Parl. Assemb. Doc. 9056, Written Decl. No. 320 (Apr. 24, 2001) (“Commemorating today the anniversary of the first genocide of the 20th century – the Armenian genocide – and paying tribute to the memory of its victims”) Council of Eur. Parl. Assemb. Doc. 8091, Written Decl. No. 275 (Apr. 24, 1998) (“Commemoration of the Armenian genocide of 1915”)
United Nations U.N. ESCOR, 38th Sess., 36th mtg. at 7, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/SR.36 (1985) (U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights took note, by a 14-1 vote (with 4 abstentions), of the historical fact of the Armenian genocide) Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, U.N. ESCOR, 38th Sess. (Prov. Agenda Item 4), at 8-9, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 (July 2, 1985), as revised, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6/Corr.1 (Aug. 29, 1985) (similar action by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights)
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 39 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 39 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of January, 2010, service of the
foregoing Corrected Brief of Amici Curiae Armenian Bar Association, Armenian
National Committee of America, Irish Immigration Center, Jewish Alliance for
Law and Social Action, The Genocide Education Project, and the Zoryan Institute
for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation, Inc. Supporting
Affirmance was made upon counsel for the parties via the automatically-generated
Notice of Docket Activity from the court’s CM/ECF filing system.
/s/ Mark C. Fleming MARK C. FLEMING
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 40 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 40 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C), the
undersigned hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume
limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(d) and Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B).
1. Exclusive of the exempted portions of the brief, as provided in Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B), the brief contains 5,296 words.
2. The brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word 2003 in 14 point Times New Roman font. As permitted by
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B), the undersigned has relied upon
the word count feature of this word processing system in preparing this certificate.
/s/ Mark C. Fleming MARK C. FLEMING
Case: 09-2002 Document: 55-2 Page: 41 Date Filed: 01/13/2010 Entry ID: 5408658Case: 09-2002 Document: 00116011431 Page: 41 Date Filed: 12/02/2009 Entry ID: 5399182