Opinion ID: 3065027
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clear Conflict

Text: We next consider whether § 354.4 clearly conflicts with the presidential foreign policy prohibiting legislative recognition 11432 MOVSESIAN v. VICTORIA VERSICHERUNG AG of an Armenian Genocide. We conclude that it does. The conflict is clear on the face of the statute: by using the phrase “Armenian Genocide,” California has defied the President’s foreign policy preferences. [7] The language of the California statute is very similar to that of the failed House Resolutions. The California Legislature made the following findings in support of § 354.4: The Legislature recognizes that during the period from 1915 to 1923, many persons of Armenian ancestry residing in the historic Armenian homeland then situated in the Ottoman Empire were victims of massacre, torture, starvation, death marches, and exile. This period is known as the Armenian Geno- cide. This language closely parallels the legislative findings in House Resolutions 596 and 106, which the Executive Branch vehemently opposed. Section 354.4 implicates the same concerns raised by the Executive Branch in response to these resolutions. [8] Movsesian contends that given § 354.4’s severability provision, the constitutionality of § 354.4(c) should be analyzed distinctly. Even assuming subsection (c) could be separated from the constitutional deficiencies underlying the rest of the statute, the subsection would still conflict with the federal policy at issue. Section 354.4(c) contains two references to the “Armenian Genocide.” As discussed above, the Executive Branch opposed House Resolution 193 simply because it contained the phrase “Armenian Genocide.” The heart of § 354.4’s conflict with the presidential foreign policy lies in these two words. By choosing to use the words “Armenian Genocide,” § 354.4 directly contradicts the President’s express foreign policy preference. Movsesian ridicules the idea that two words could have such a “talismanic” effect. The symbolic effect of the words, MOVSESIAN v. VICTORIA VERSICHERUNG AG 11433 however, is precisely the problem. The federal government has made a conscious decision not to apply the politically charged label of “genocide” to the deaths of these Armenians during World War I. Whether or not California agrees with this decision, it may not contradict it. See Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 427. When it comes to dealings with foreign nations, “state lines disappear.” Belmont, 301 U.S. at 331. California may not assert a “distinct juristic personality.” Pink, 315 U.S. at 230. If § 354.4 provoked Turkey’s ire, it is the nation as a whole — not just California — that would suffer. “If state action could defeat or alter our foreign policy, serious consequences might ensue. The nation as a whole would be held to answer if a State created difficulties with a foreign power.” Pink, 315 U.S. at 232. The Bush Administration warned that American recognition of an “Armenian Genocide” could endanger America’s alliance with Turkey, and thus, our troops on the ground in Iraq. See Letter from Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates to Nancy Pelosi, supra at 2. [9] Section 354.4 also threatens to undermine the Executive Branch’s diplomatic relations with Turkey. States may not “compromise the very capability of the President to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other governments.” Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 424. Here, § 354.4 “undercuts the President’s diplomatic discretion and the choice he has made in exercising it.” Id. at 423-24. In Garamendi and Crosby, the Court struck down state statutes which undermined the President’s diplomatic discretion. Id.; Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000). By providing explicit recognition to the “Armenian Genocide,” § 354.4 threatens to have the same deleterious effect. The Executive Branch chose to address the issue through the medium of presidential speeches, not legislation: “The President believes that the proper way to address this issue and express our feelings about it is through the presiden11434 MOVSESIAN v. VICTORIA VERSICHERUNG AG tial message and not through legislation . . . . What [President Bush] wants is for the presidential message to be the thing that stands for the American response to this, not legislation passed by the House of Representatives.” See Press Release, White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Dana Perino (Oct. 11, 2007). California has done what Congress declined to do: it has defied the President’s foreign policy preferences, and has undermined the President’s diplomatic power. Finally, we must address the district court’s conclusion that the presidential policy prohibiting Congress from recognizing an “Armenian Genocide” does not apply to individual states. In support of this conclusion, the district court noted that thirty-nine other states have passed legislation recognizing the “Armenian Genocide,” and neither the federal government nor Turkey expressed any opposition to these state statutes. The district court’s reasoning is not persuasive for several reasons. First, legislation enacted by other states is irrelevant to the question of whether § 354.4 is preempted by presidential foreign policy. Furthermore, there is no citation or evidence in the record of these other thirty-nine state statutes which purportedly reference the “Armenian Genocide.” Second, the fact that the federal government has not expressly prohibited states from using the phrase “Armenian Genocide” is not outcome-determinative. In Deutsch, this court rejected a similar argument, and refused to recognize a private cause of action for war injuries. Though the relevant treaties did not expressly prohibit such actions, the Deutsch court held that “[w]ithout [explicit] authorization, states lack the power to alter the federal government’s resolution of disputes relating to the war.” Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 714. Though the instant case does not concern war injuries and reparations, Deutsch‘s reasoning is still applicable. The power to conduct diplomatic relations and negotiations, like the war powers, is vested exclusively with the federal government. U. S. Const. MOVSESIAN v. VICTORIA VERSICHERUNG AG 11435 art. I, § 8; id. at art. II, § 3. Absent explicit authorization, states may not modify or alter the nation’s foreign policy. Deutsch, 324 F.3d at 713-14. [10] In sum, § 354.4 conflicts with the Executive Branch’s clearly expressed foreign policy refusing to provide official legislative recognition to the “Armenian Genocide.” The Executive Branch policy is entitled to preemptive weight, because the Executive has the authority to make this policy, and Congress has deferred to the Executive’s will in this matter. Section 354.4 impermissibly impairs the President’s ability to speak with one voice for the nation in the realm of foreign affairs, and undermines his diplomatic authority. As in Garamendi, the express presidential foreign policy and the clear conflict raised by § 354.4 are “alone enough to require state law to yield.” Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 425. The Garamendi Court, however, went on to consider the strength of California’s interest in enacting HVIRA, observing: “If any doubt about the clarity of the conflict remained . . . it would have to be resolved in the National Government’s favor, given the weakness of the State’s interest.” Id. Accordingly, we will also address the strength of California’s interest in enacting § 354.4.