rulings on the part of the court below reached without any hearing whatsoever and i ask you work what what's what statute years you are seeking relief pursuant to me well whether they vie which nine hundred eighty three provides a cause of action i'm not reading the whole thing for violation of rights secured by the constitution and laws of the united states what bright secured by the constitution and laws of the united states it is has via been violated here the foreign affairs power of the constitution of the united states but that's a right secured to a citizen  there's two questions your honor one has to do with standing which has nothing to do with the nature of the claim but is dependent on the injury well that's a separate question i agree with you but i want to know what that's guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the united states was your client deprived of which browser which law and which provision of the constitution violated your client's rights in the conduct of glendale in opposition to the foreign affairs power under the us constitution i believe they have a right to assert that if they have spankers so into what statute i don't think it's necessarily pursuant to a statute or you're saying it's derived from the constitution itself yes and i think both crosby and  those are both cases where individual plaintiffs were entitle to assert foreign affairs power they were found to have standing and they proceeded to a result in which the conduct complained of was stricken under the foreign affairs power of the us constitution in any event we complain of three acts by the court below first dismissing the case for lack of standing second then assuming hypothetical jurisdiction and dismissing under twelve  find both standing and sufficient plausible foreign affairs preemption and to remand with instructions to allow the plaintiff to proceed to discovery at a minimum that they should be  proceed to discover kirk fellow found that there was no standing for you to pursue these kinds of corrections but then it went on to discuss the merits and say he failed to state ourselves have we just we manned i think with respect to a twelve b six motion this panel would be able to decide that there was a sufficient showing of possibility  and address whether or not this is a the novo hearing you can address whether or not there is a sufficient implausible statement of claim to survive twelve  not suggesting this panel should hear evidence on the ultimate outcome i'm defending glendale is dissatisfied with how the federal government has exercised its exclusive foreign affairs power to address a controversial dispute between to important foreign allies of the us japan and south korea by advocating conciliation and diplomacy in problem trast glendale and condemns the japanese for unproven war crimes or those who speak about japanese victims as well they do and asking the present day government of japan to accept historical responsibility and apologize for those alleged crimes the us government has not done this as such neither should or preemption case in your honour's we are advocating field preemption that is not necessary but all the same as judge wardlaw pointed out in her whether or not a letter was written in that dissent she pointed among other things to bassett or bells public pronouncements on the relevant foreign policy we ha pronouncements by ambassador kennedy by secretary of state kerry and we also have a statement of interest filed in the job j o o case that all reflect the kind of policy that would support field preemption if not conflict play in sion there should also be no doubt of what glendale zakk sions were designed to do city council member friedman publicly breitbart on ackman of the ordinance that quote we really put the city of glendale on the international map today and for size international in doing so city council members a nonunion a lawyer expressly acknowledge that glendale was acting in direct contravention of this court's muffs s in the city as well mayor weaver who was the lone dissenter from the city council vote publicly stated on the record that the city council's actions were inappropriate it's also rather suspicious at least to me that glendale city council also failed to follow its own local municipal ordinance by not disclosing and voting on the inflammatory language it intended to set forth in the plan had glendale intended only a mere commemoration of comfort women synonymy and would have had no reason whatsoever to acknowledge violation then  pointis here are of japanese descent they have standing under barney's wallace because they have suffered psychological injury leading to a loss of use an enjoyment of glendale central park because he owns property in glendale and he pays taxes to glendale that are used to maintain and secure glendale central park including the challenge to comfort women monument and pla allegedly ever use this park he does it is alleged in the complaint there's a paragraph i think it might be paragraph fifty three of the complaint but it states that if the monument and i'm talking about yes sure turning briefly to the merits in months s e in the california legislature extended the statute of limitations for armenian genocide victims california at argued that its actions were motivated by traditional insurance interest the ninth circuit panel saw through that applying gar and my favorite dissent of judge wardlaw in vons sour the ninth circuit on bonk which included judge reinhardt i don't want to leave him out look to the real purpose of california statute of limitations extension finding it to be an improper genocide foreign policy position of add the because he contradicting the federal japanese urging in particular admission of guilt and apology hardly just  i would like to also make brief mention of the alameda and the words cases in in alameda local government from communicating with its citizenry we're not suggesting otherwise but as judge reinhardt pointed out in that case the resolutions didn't regulate anything didn't ask anyone to do anything or compel them or order them to do anything it is also the case in alameda that instructive as it might be it was mere dicta as to foreign affairs power but as to the national labor relations act we have no preemption that is a law that addresses collective bargaining there was nothing in the alameda case that went remotely near that  would likely be inappropriate under foreign affairs preemption law i took coercive to mean in essence breaking through into the glass ceiling good morning your honour's christopher muncie on behalf of the defendant city of glendale in this case the plaintiff seek an unprecedented expansion of two separate bodies of law to be clear no case has ever found standing under facts such as those presented here and to be clear no case has ever found of foreign affairs preemption under facts such as those presented here to be first with standing in their briefs below in just now and mr barrack's argument plaintiffs have hinged their standing argument entirely on this court's decision and the barnes wallis case that in the barnes wallace case the plaintiffs would have been forced to pay fees in order to use the public land issue and they would have had to pay those fees to the boy scouts an organization that had explicit policies of exclusion and discrimination against the groups to which the plaintiffs in that case belonged in addition to the payment of fees the court of the sized that the plaintiffs would have had to seek permission from  make their visits under the dominion of and otherwise interact with the boy scouts again a group that discriminated specifically against people like the plaintiffs none of these facts are present in this case cross is put and that amounts to dandy constitutional standing so how do you distinguish this case since the same with our environmental cases to enjoy  well well i would i would distinguish first between what the establishment clause cases hold and what the environmental cases hold on if i can take them in reverse order i believe what the environmental cases hold is that actual physical interruption with the enjoyment of public land can be sufficient for standing so it's more than simply the disagreement with the viewing the pollution it's the actual effects of the pollution itself on the enjo of public land so for instance in the friends of the earth case there was the allegations were that there was mercury contamination contamination of the lakes issue and so plaintiffs had curtailed their swimming and boating well i believe that the the what the environmental cases stand for is the proposition that if there is actual interference with the use of land that causes plaintiffs to cease their enjoyment of that public land an obstruction or that your or whatever because psychological psychological impact the individual well the supreme court has been clear that that's simple the simple psychological effect of viewing the government violate the law even the constitution is not sufficient for standing so without the interference and the use of the land the actual interference and the environmental cases standing likely would not have have lied and then by contrast in this case the exclusion there is no exclusion from the land there is simply voluntarily voluntary decision not to use the public park despite the fact that there is no actual interference with the use of the public park and to turn f which is not a lower standard the supreme court was clear in the valley forge case that it's not a lower standard but it is simply a different form of harm from just viewing a violation of harms see any allege that having clear your honor if they were if the injury alleged was simply witnessing the monument and witnessing its purported interference with a foreign affairs power that would not be sufficient i know it's not under that he you're depriving him is a specific spiritual injury and not simply offense at the government's alleged violation of law or the constitution to be clear no cases outside of the establishment cla was preparing for the third or fourth time from the arguments this morning about the jurisdictional statute here is nine hundred eighty three that's correct your honor what provision of the federal counts were constitutional r as you've been deprived of well simming everything he says is so that he would have used the park and you know he even though he doesn't live in glendale and wants a similar matter shows injury from what first of all the current order judgments are a matter of discretion on what basis would he get the criteria judgment that was constitutional rights were not being violated if no constitutional right of his was being violated well further course of action just because the supremacy clause was violated i mean i'm just trying to understand what what provision of the constitution constitutional right if this was violated i think your honor is absolutely correct there is no individual right under the supremacy clause by itself and we certainly would agree that  because again i i think that the it appears from the case of the foreign affairs power can be used as in those cases essentially as a defensive mechanism against government enforcement or interference with a plaintiff's actions but that is not to say that the constitution those constitutional provisions the commander in chief clause the treaty clause and so forth are create an individual this monument does it have a relationship with south korea or its sister city is that what it is yes your honor i glendale has a significant korean american population it is sister cities with at least with seoul south korea and possibly another south korean and sister city and essentially it was responding to the will of its citizens to commemorate these historical events anyway as a technical matter i'm not sure that's what the law provides however i think as a practical matter these are popular issues of law the case is fully briefed judge anderson  reach matters that could not have affected the outcome are not material to the outcome and basically make a generous and did was say he has no jurisdiction so anything after that does not affect that outcome that is i think technically correct and we would not have jurisdiction over that we would have to if we decide that they're standing we would have to send it back to him again i'm not sure that's true after you by a panel three judge panel doesn't have authority to change that decision the council referred to  plaque itself was not provided for by the vigeland i suppose from the monument i mean i don't know is that correct no it's not it's it's glendale monument and plaque i just wan absolutely demichelis sept it was regulation if you look at pleasant grove and if you look at alameda it's clear that offensive express of language can violate the foreign affairs power just as much if that were not true and in their papers counsel argues non regulatory expressive conduct gets a free pass if that was so glendale could put up a monument  glendale central park that would say jerusalem is the capital of palestine and israel you should man up and admit that and accept that that would not fly plaintiffs would come in and that would be found to violate the foreign affairs power of our constitution you're right up to the point where the plaintiffs would come in but the issue was whether they would prevail as a separate story i i understand but judge korman you and i may have a fundamental difference of whether foreign affairs power can be asserted by a private party i think it can and i don't think there's a difference between regulation and coercive expression i have just one quick general household cleaning chore plaintiffs believe the global alliance for preserving history of world war two there and because brief on comfort women history is irrelevant to this case unsupported by competent evidence and wholly inaccurate if this court wishes to consider that brief plaintiffs would look like this panel's permission to file a supplemental brief responding to the global brief