Michiko Gingery v. City of Glendale
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14269
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Glendale installed a bronze “Comfort Woman” monument and plaque in a public park commemorating women purportedly forced into sexual servitude by the Japanese Imperial Army.
- Plaintiffs (a Japanese‑American resident, an organization, and another individual) challenged the installation as intruding on the federal government’s exclusive foreign affairs power and thus preempted under the Supremacy Clause; they sought removal of the monument.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding lack of standing and, alternatively, failure to state a preemption claim; it declined supplemental state‑law claims.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff Mera had Article III standing (he alleged he avoided using the park and his enjoyment was diminished) and therefore reached the merits.
- The court concluded Glendale’s monument was a traditional local expressive act (memorial/proclamation) that did not create regulatory schemes, alter legal rights, or plausibly intrude on foreign affairs; it affirmed dismissal for failure to state a preemption claim.
- Concurring opinion (Judge Korman) agreed on standing and the merits outcome but argued §1983 does not provide a cause of action for Supremacy/foreign‑affairs preemption and that equitable relief typically applies only to state regulatory actions (Ex parte Young context).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III) | Mera alleged concrete injury: offended, avoids park, diminished enjoyment | Glendale: plaintiffs lack injury and therefore no jurisdiction | Mera has standing: inability to unreservedly use public park is a cognizable injury; causation and redressability satisfied |
| Whether monument is preempted by foreign affairs doctrine (field preemption) | Monument expresses viewpoint on an international dispute and thus intrudes on federal foreign affairs power | Monument is a local expressive/memorial act within traditional municipal authority and does not regulate or change legal rights | Held: no preemption—monument concerns traditional state/local responsibility and lacks plausible allegation of more than incidental effect on foreign affairs |
| Whether Glendale’s action conflicts with an existing federal policy (conflict preemption) | Plaintiffs argue monument undermines federal noninterventionist policy | Glendale: U.S. policy is one of neutrality; no direct conflict alleged | Plaintiffs did not plead a conflict; they relied on field preemption and conceded no specific federal policy conflict |
| Availability of relief under §1983 / equitable remedy (concurrence) | Plaintiffs invoked federal enforcement (implicitly §1983) to enjoin municipal conduct | Glendale: Supremacy Clause/foreign affairs provisions do not create individual rights enforceable under §1983; no regulatory action to enjoin | Concurrence: §1983 does not provide a cause of action here; equitable preemption suits traditionally remedy state regulatory actions (Ex parte Young) and may not reach purely expressive acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for Article III)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard — plausibility requirement)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (use of monuments as government speech)
- Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 670 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. en banc) (foreign affairs preemption framework; field vs. conflict preemption)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 592 F.3d 954 (preemption where state law would require courts to evaluate foreign reparations decisions)
- American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (state measures conflicting with federal foreign‑policy authority)
- Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (state law intruding on foreign affairs)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (standing where plaintiffs refrain from using polluted areas)