Court Reverses Earlier Decision that Placed State and Local Genocide Recognition Efforts at Risk
WASHINGTON—The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) today welcomed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in the Movsesian v. Versicherung case reversing an earlier ruling striking down as unconstitutional a California law allowing for the return of Armenian Genocide-era insurance claims. The court reversed the August 2009 ruling by a 2-1 margin.
“We applaud the Ninth Circuit court for reaffirming the right of U.S. states to speak truthfully about the Armenian Genocide, and allowing the descendants of genocide-era victims and survivors to pursue their rightful claims,” said ANCA executive director Aram Hamparian. “We are particularly gratified that the court found that the California statute was a valid exercise of the state’s power, and that there clearly is not an established federal policy forbidding state references to the Armenian Genocide.”
“On behalf of all Armenian Americans and our friends in the genocide-prevention movement, we want to share our special thanks with those who skillfully led and actively supported this successful appeal,” added Hamparian.
The ANCA, along with the Armenian Bar Association, Zoryan Institute, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, filed an Amici Curiae brief petitioning the court for a rehearing. They were ably represented by attorneys David Balabanian, David Salmons, and Erin Conroy from the Bingham McCutchen. Notably, last year, serving in his capacity as California attorney general, Jerry Brown, now the governor-elect of California, submitted an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the people of California in support of the plaintiffs’ property claims emanating from the Armenian Genocide. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and EarthRights International also filed their own separate Amicus Curiae briefs in support of a rehearing.
To read the Ninth Circuit Court Decision, visit http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/12/10/07-56722.pdf.
It is fitting that this decsion was announced to a packed audience last night at the Boston area premiere of Eric Friedler’s documentary “Aghet:Nation Murder” at Harvard University. It is further evidence that with the dedicated efforts of the descendant of the victims of this crime, the truth shall never be silenced. It also illustrates the importance of educating our children to never forget and to commit yourselves to the service of the Armenian people. It is only in this way that an action such as a lawsuit 95 years after the gencide is possible. May God Bless their souls and grant our people justice.
The section titled “A. Conflict Preemption” appears to cover the evaluation of whether it is US foreign policy that the Armenian genocide is not a genocide. The two judges conclude that there is no “express federal policy” on the genocide and does not forbid the use of the term Armenian Genocide.
We owe a debt to the lawyers who pursued this case and persuaded the panel to do something that panels never do – to change their minds.
It really should not matter whether there was an Armenian genocide or not, or whether the California law uses the word “genocide” or whether the US has recognized the genocide. The issue is that the insurance companies did not compensate their Armenian policy holders due to the genocide, massacres, ethnic cleansing, murder, or whatever you wish to call it. The same goes for the banks that stole Armenian money. They stole it from Armenians and it should not matter whether the Armenians were dead due to genocide, massacres, ethnic cleansing, murder, or whatever you wish to call it.
I think we may be getting some issues confused here. The original court decision seemed to seize on the “G word” unjustifiably and rather ignorantly.
If I am mistaken in my analysis, please tell me.
Dave,
I agree with you, it should not matter since this is about individuals and their insurance company. But a California passed a law about this and I’m curious as to why a law was needed. Maybe I should go read the bill itself.
I think the majority opinion is spot on in its evaluation of what the US foreign policy is about the genocide and it has been to try not say it was or wasn’t.
I’m just curious. Armenia was a part of Soviet Union. All private property rights were abolished in Soviet system. What happened to the properties of Armenians during that time?