Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
1 1DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
No. 09-2002
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Defendants-Appellees.
Armenian Bar Association, Irish Immigration Center, Inc., Jewish Alliance for
Law and Social Action, Inc., The Genocide Education Project, and the Zoryan
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
Internal Revenue Code and that it is not a publicly held corporation and does not
issue stock.
-i-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
3 3DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................23
APPENDICES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
- ii -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
4 4DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page
Griffin v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...............20
Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 578 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) ...............21
- iii -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
5 5DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
Sutliffe v. Epping School District, 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009)...........13, 14, 15, 20
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
- iv -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
6 6DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
the future.
United States on a broad range of genocide education, human rights, civic, and
of the Armenian Genocide and the education of state citizens about it in hopes of
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
schools of the Commonwealth. IIC endorses this particular goal, but is equally
concerned that the collective memory of the other events covered by the
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
frequently filed amicus briefs in the state and federal courts in cases involving
public education and quality education for all students, JALSA was active in
underlies the present case and worked to broaden that legislation to include
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
-2-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
8 8DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
educators in teaching about human rights and genocide, particularly the Armenian
Armenian history and culture. The Zoryan Institute has an interest in recognition
and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide and the education of state citizens
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
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
Genocide and Human Rights (the Guide) is the Commonwealth’s own expression
of its view that certain materials may be appropriate for that purpose.
-3-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
9 9DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
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
Both this Court and the Supreme Court have recently reaffirmed that the
“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
speech in the Guide, their remedy is the political process, not a lawsuit. As the
-4-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
10 10DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
government speech is properly determined. Add. 7.1 The district court correctly
ARGUMENT
Chapter 276 of the Acts and Resolves of 1998 (Chapter 276) directs the
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
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
violations and genocides,” such as the “Armenian [G]enocide.” Id. The Board
1
Citations to “Add.” refer to the Addendum to the Brief of Plaintiff-Appellants;
citations to “A__” refer to Appellants’ Appendix.
-5-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
11 11DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
Echoing Chapter 276, the Guide states at its outset that it “offers
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
History and Social Science Framework). With respect to the history of genocide in
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.
-6-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
12 12DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
teachers may (but need not) consult in building a curriculum. The Guide states that
curriculum materials, but offers the guidelines below.” A232 (emphasis added).
The Guide then provides a series of recommended criteria for educators to consider
teaching about genocide and human rights issues (A233-238). The Guide therefore
Massachusetts educators should teach the history of human rights violations and
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
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).
-7-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
13 13DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
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
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
(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
-8-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
14 14DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
forty-one other states have explicitly recognized the Armenian Genocide, whether
governments).
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
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
-9-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
15 15DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the Government’s own speech
544 U.S. 550, 553 (2005). Accordingly, “when the State is the speaker, it may
515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995). These choices include the discretion to control what
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
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.
- 10 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
16 16DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
our society rests.” Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 (1979) (internal quotation
environment and preparing them for a productive life in society, education is “the
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)
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
- 11 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
17 17DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
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
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
American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995).
- 12 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
18 18DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
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
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]
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
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
- 13 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
19 19DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
Plaintiffs’ only response is to distort their own allegations. They accuse 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.
Amendment” (id. at 21) is, when stripped of its rhetoric, merely a disagreement
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
Because Appellants’ complaint did not allege that they were denied access to the
- 14 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
20 20DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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—
own voice and the government’s silencing of others (citing Laurence H. Tribe,
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.
“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
Changing Societies 137 (1998). The commemorative function lies at the core of
- 15 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
21 21DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
celebratory occasions, and memorial rituals through which the state impresses
endorse, governments in the United States are not required to give equal
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
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
3
See Levinson 57 (photograph of the monument).
- 16 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
22 22DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
• 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 Boston National Historic Park maintains the site housing the New
monuments to other human rights violations that many may consider no less
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
4
See http://www.nehm.com/intro.html.
- 17 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
23 23DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
curricular materials are no less protected from First Amendment challenge than 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
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
- 18 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
24 24DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
rather than an unequivocal command, does not make it any less the
Commonwealth’s message.
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
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
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
were also included and then removed from the Guide); see also Appellees’ Br. 10
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
- 19 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
25 25DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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.
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
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.
- 20 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
26 26DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
materials that were not in the first draft of the Guide. See, e.g., A93-112 (Compl.
Exs. 2-7).6
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
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.
- 21 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
27 27DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we ‘are
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007))). The statement
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,
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
- 22 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
28 28DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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
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
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be
affirmed.
- 23 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
29 29DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
Respectfully submitted,
- 24 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
30 30DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
APPENDIX A
State Citation
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:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
31 31DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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)
-2-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
32 32DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
Delaware Sen. Con. Res. 19, 138th Gen. Assemb. (Del. Apr. 11, 1995)
H. Res. 14, 144th Gen. Assemb. (Del. Apr. 5, 2007)
Georgia S. Res. 118, 145th Gen. Assemb., 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. (Ga. Feb.
8, 1999)
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)
-3-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
33 33DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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)
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)
Missouri H. Con. Res. 4, 91st Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mo. May 8,
2002)
-4-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
34 34DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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)
-5-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
35 35DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
North Dakota H.R. Con. Res. 3003, 60th Leg. Assemb., 2007 Reg. Sess. (N.D.
Apr. 5, 2007)
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)
-6-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
36 36DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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)
South H.R. Con. Res. 3618, Gen. Assemb., 113th Sess. (S.C. Apr. 24,
Carolina 1999)
-7-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
37 37DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
-8-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
38 38DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
APPENDIX B
Canada H.C. Res., Private Members’ Bus. M-380 (Apr. 21, 2004)
(Can.)
Russia State Duma Res. of Apr. 14, 1995, Fed. Assemb. of Russian
Fed’n (Russ.)
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).
-9-
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
39 39DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
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)
- 10 -
Case:
Case:
09-2002
09-2002
Document:
Document:
00116011431
55-2 Page:
Page:
40 40DateDate
Filed:Filed:
01/13/2010
12/02/2009EntryEntry
ID: 5408658
ID: 5399182
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of January, 2010, service of the
Law and Social Action, The Genocide Education Project, and the Zoryan Institute
Affirmance was made upon counsel for the parties via the automatically-generated
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
undersigned hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume
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.