FREEDOM v. BREWER

7/28/2019 FREEDOM v. BREWER

1/36

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT

EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.

See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF ARIZONA

DIVISION ONE

FREEDOM FROM RELI GI ON FOUNDATI ON,I NC. , a Wi sconsi n non- pr of i tcor por at i on; VALLEY OF THE SUNCHAPTER OF THE FREEDOM FROMRELI GI ON FOUNDATI ON, an Ar i zonanon- pr of i t cor por at i on; MI KEWASDI N, an i ndi vi dual ; MI CHAELRENZULLI , an i ndi vi dual ; J USTI NGRANT, an i ndi vi dual ; J I M SHARPE,

an i ndi vi dual ; CRYSTALKESHAWARZ, an i ndi vi dual ; andBARRY HESS, an i ndi vi dual ,

Pl ai nt i f f s / Appel l ant s ,

v.

J ANI CE K. BREWER, Governor oft he St at e of Ar i zona,

Def endant / Appel l ee.

)))))))))

))))))))

)))))

1 CA- CV 12- 0684

DEPARTMENT B

MEMORANDUM DECIS

( Not f or Publ i caRul e 28, Ar i zonaCi vi l Appel l at e

Appeal f r om t he Super i or Cour t i n Mar i copa Count

Cause No. CV2012- 070001

The Honor abl e Ei l een S. Wi l l et t , J udge

AFFIRMED

________________________________________________________


2/36

At t or neys f or Pl ai nt i f f / Appel l antVal l ey of t he Sun Chapt er of t he Freedom f r om Rel i gi on

Foundat i on

Bal l ar d Spahr LLP By J oseph A. Kanef i el dand Cr ai g C. Hof f man

And

Of f i ce of Gover nor J ani ce K. Br ewer By J oseph Sci ar r ot t a, J r .

At t orneys f or Def endant / Appel l ee Governor Br ewer________________________________________________________

K E S S L E R, J udge

1 Thi s appeal r equi r es us t o det er mi ne Appel l ant s1 have st andi ng t o seek i nj unct i ve and de

r el i ef agai nst Gover nor J ani ce Br ewer . Under t wo pr ov

t he Ar i zona Const i t ut i on, Appel l ant s chal l enged

Br ewer s procl amat i ons of a day of pr ayer , but t he

cour t f ound t he Appel l ant s l acked st andi ng t o br i

chal l enge and, di smi ssed t he compl ai nt . The r ecor d

demonst r at es t hat Appel l ant s di d not al l ege or seek

t axpayer st andi ng, di d not al l ege any di st i nct and pal p

t o themsel ves, and t hat t hi s case does not mer i t a

Ar i zona s prudent i al st andi ng requi r ement s. Accor di

af f i r m t he di smi ssal of t he compl ai nt .


3/36

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2 The i ndi vi dual Appel l ant s ar e peopl e who bel inot bel i eve i n r el i gi on. The or gani zat i onal Appel l

member shi p or gani zat i on[ s] whose pur pose[ ] [ i s] t o pr

f undament al const i t ut i onal pr i nci pl e of separ at i on of c

st at e and t o educat e on mat t er s r el at i ng t o nont hei s

J anuar y 2012, Appel l ant s sought decl ar at or y r el i ef by

compl ai nt al l egi ng t hat t he Governor s 2010 and 201

pr ocl amat i ons, appended t o t hi s deci si on as Appendi x A,

Ar t i cl e 2, Sect i on 12 and Ar t i cl e 20, Par . 1, of t h

Const i t ut i on. 3 Speci f i cal l y, t hey al l eged t hat t he G

pr ocl amat i ons vi ol at ed Ar t i cl e 2, Sect i on 12 when she

gover nment posi t i on, act i ng i n her of f i ci al capaci t y

she was pai d by publ i c money, t o appr opr i ate and app

2 The parent organi zat i on has t he mi ss i on and puadvocat e on behal f of i t s members t o pr otect i t s mem[ st at e/ chur ch separ at i on] vi ol at i ons.

3 The 2010 Ar i zona Day of Prayer pr ocl amat i on st at es

Amer i cans of ever y race, background and cr eed come tochur ches, synagogues, t empl es, mosques and t hei r own pr ay f or gui dance, wi sdom and cour age. The 2011 Ar i zoPr ayer pr ocl amat i on i s subst ant i al l y t he same. I n t he Governor i ssued anot her 2010 pr ocl amat i on f or aPrayer f or Ar i zona s Economy and St ate Budget .


4/36

money and pr oper t y by endor si ng r el i gi ous wor shi p, ex

i nst r uct i on, and suppor t i ng r el i gi ous est abl i shment . 4

al l eged t hat t he pr ocl amat i ons at t acked t he [ i ndi

pr ot ect ed r i ght f r om mol est at i on i n per son or pr o

account of hi s or her mode of r el i gi ous wor shi p, or

[ t he] same i n vi ol at i on of Ar t i cl e 20, Par . 1.5

They

4 Ar t i cl e 2, Sect i on 12 pr ovi des i n r el evant par t :

No publ i c money or pr oper t y shal l be appr opr i at edor appl i ed t o any r el i gi ous wor shi p, exer ci se,

i nst r uct i on, or t o t he suppor t of any r el i gest abl i shment .

Thi s const i t ut i onal provi si on has been descr i bed Rel i gi on Cl ause and Ar i zona s anal og t o t he Est abl i shment Cl ause, t hat i s i nt ended t o enssepar at i on of chur ch and st at e. Cain v. Horne, 218 A305, 6, 183 P. 3d 1269, 1273 (App. 2008) , vacated

grounds by220 Ar i z. 77, 202 P. 3d 1178 ( 2009) ( Cain II

5 Ar t i cl e 20, Par . 1 has been cal l ed Ar i zona s t ol er at i on of r el i gi on cl ause, Barlow v. Blackburn, 351, 354, 798 P. 2d 1360, 1363 ( App. 1990) , andPer f ect t ol er at i on of r el i gi ous sent i ment shal l be sever y i nhabi t ant of t hi s St at e, and no i nhabi t ant of tshal l ever be mol est ed i n per son or pr oper t y on accou

or her mode of r el i gi ous wor shi p, or l ack of t he same.

Wi t h r espect t o t hi s pr ovi si on, our supr eme cour t has pst at ed t hat :

[ t ] he pr ohi bi t i ons agai nst t he use of pu


5/36

t hat t he pr ocl amat i ons make non- bel i evers and many

pol i t i cal out si der s by sendi ng a message t o non- bel i e

t hey ar e not wel come to f ul l y par t i ci pat e i n g

pr ocesses, and t he desi gnat i on of a day of pr ayer

host i l e envi r onment f or non- bel i ever s and many bel i ev

ar e made t o f eel as i f t hey ar e second cl ass ci t i zens

al so sought t o enj oi n t he Gover nor f r om pr ocl ai mi ng an

pr ayer i n 2012 and t her eaf t er .

3 The Governor moved t o di smi ss Appel l ant s pur suant t o Ar i zona Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e ( Rul e)

ar gui ng t hat t he super i or cour t l acked subj e

j ur i sdi ct i on. 6 Speci f i cal l y, t he Gover nor ar gu

Appel l ant s: ( 1) l acked st andi ng because a pr ocl amat i o

We bel i eve t hat t he f r amer s of t he Ar iConst i t ut i on i nt ended by t hi s sect i on t o pr ohi bi t use of t he power and t he pr est i ge of t he St ate or of i t s agenci es f or t he suppor t or f avor of r el i gi on over anot her , or of r el i gi on nonr el i gi on. The St at e i s mandat ed by

const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on t o be absol ut el y i mparwhen i t comes t o the quest i on of r el i gi ous pr ef er eand publ i c money or proper t y may not be usedpr omot e or f avor any par t i cul ar r el i gi ous sectdenomi nat i on or r el i gi on gener al l y.


6/36

l egal ef f ect and can be i gnor ed; ( 2) f ai l ed t o ar t i

par t i cul ar i zed and pal pabl e i nj ur y because ther e

al t er at i on of conduct al l eged and a per cei ved s

f eel i ng of excl usi on does not conf er st andi ng; ( 3) do

r epr esent at i onal st andi ng because t he Freedom From

Foundat i on s i ndi vi dual member s l ack st andi ng; and

seeki ng t o pur sue moot cl ai ms and/ or an advi sor y opi ni o

past pr ocl amat i ons cannot be undone and the co

pot ent i al f ut ur e pr ocl amat i ons cannot be pr edi ct ed.

4 Despi t e t he f act t hey had not al l eged i n t he t hat t hey were Ar i zona t axpayers, Appel l ant s opposed t h

asser t i ng t hat [ t ] hi s i s mor e than a mer e t axpaye

Rat her , [ t ] he i ssue goes f ar deeper t han a f ew ci t i zen

t o some smal l por t i on of t hei r t ax dol l ar s bei ng i l l ega

by the Governor i n t he ser vi ce of her pr ef err ed

r el i gi ous wor shi p. Appel l ant s asser t ed t hat t hey had

because they al l eged t hey suf f er ed a t angi bl e

ar t i cul at ed i n t he compl ai nt :

[ The] 2010 and 2011 pr ocl amat i ons . . .vi ol at ed Ar t i c l e I I , Sect i on 12, of t heAr i zona Const i t ut i on when [ t he Gover nor ]used her gover nment posi t i on, act i ng i n her


7/36

5 I n addi t i on, Appel l ant s mai nt ai ned t hat t heyper sonal har m beyond mer el y bei ng f or ced t o pay f or

wi t h whi ch they di sagr ee because t he pr ocl amat i

depr i ved t hem of t hei r Const i t ut i onal l y codi f i ed pr

f r om mol est at i on i n r el i gi ous mat t er [ s] . Appel l a

asser t ed t hat t he pr ocl amat i ons make t hem pol i t i cal o

and second cl ass ci t i zens. Fi nal l y, Appel l ant s ar

t he st andi ng r equi r ement s shoul d be wai ved beca

cont r over sy i s i mpor t ant and t he vi ol at i ons ar e l i kel y t

6 The super i or cour t di smi ssed t he compl apr ej udi ce af t er det er mi ni ng t hat Appel l ant s l ack[ ed]

suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e t hat t hey have di

r epr esent at i onal st andi ng, and [ i ] n t he absenc

par t i cul ar i zed and concrete i nj ur y . . . [ Appel l ant s

cannot go f or war d. The cour t st at ed t hat Appel l ant s

al l eged t hat t hey f i l ed t hei r cl ai ms i n t hei r cap

t axpayer s, nor have t hey shown a di r ect i nj ur y, pec

ot her wi se. The cour t al so hel d t her e wer e [ n] o ex

ci r cumst ances . . . t o suppor t t he Cour t s wai ver

st andi ng r equi r ement , and Appel l ant s were seeki ng an


8/36

ISSUES ON APPEAL AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

8 Bot h par t i es r e- ur ge t he ar gument s t hey bel ow. Subj ect - mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on and st andi ng ar e

l aw, whi ch we revi ew de novo. Mitchell v. Gamble,

364, 367, 6, 86 P. 3d 944, 947 (App. 2004) ( subj e

j ur i sdi ct i on) ; Robert Schalkenbach Found. v. Lincoln

Inc., 208 Ar i z. 176, 180, 15, 91 P. 3d 1019, 1023 ( A

( st andi ng) ; Hill v. Peterson, 201 Ar i z. 363, 365, 5,

417, 419 ( App. 2001) . We al so r evi ew a di smi ssal of a

f or a l ack of subj ect- mat t er j ur i sdi cti on de novo. Se

v. City of Mesa, 230 Ar i z. 352, 355, 7, 284 P. 3d

( 2012) . We wi l l assume t he t r ut h of t he wel l - pl ed

al l egat i ons and i ndul ge al l r easonabl e i nf er ences t he

Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ar i z. 417, 419,

P. 3d 344, 346 ( 2008) ; see also Jeter v. Mayo Clinic A

Ar i z. 386, 389, 4, 121 P. 3d 1256, 1259 ( App

However , we do not accept as t r ue al l egat i ons consi

concl usi ons of l aw, i nf er ences or deduct i ons t hat

necessari l y i mpl i ed by wel l - pl eaded f act s, unr

i nf er ences or unsuppor t ed concl usi ons f r om such f act s,


9/36

concl usi ons al l eged as f act s. Id.; see also Cullen,

at 419, 7, 189 P. 3d at 346. [ C] oncl usor y al l egat i o

and unwar r ant ed i nf er ences wi l l not def eat an

pr oper [ l y] [ f i l ed] mot i on t o di smi ss. Vasquez v. Lo

County, 487 F. 3d 1246, 1249 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal

marks omi t t ed) .

DISCUSSION

I. Standing

9 I n anal yzi ng t he st andi ng i ssue, we ar e f acepauci t y of Ar i zona pr ecedent appl yi ng st andi ng pr i nci pl

t wo const i t ut i onal i ssues r ai sed. Accor di ngl y,

summar i ze and appl y gener al Ar i zona st andi ng pr i nci pl es

t he ext ent t hey ar e consi st ent wi t h Ar i zona l aw, l ook t

pr ecedent on st andi ng f or Est abl i shment Cl ause pur poses.

10 Ar i zona cour t s ar e not const i t ut i onal l y cot o decl i ne j ur i sdi ct i on based on l ack of st andi ng.

Hull, 192 Ar i z. 65, 71, 24, 961 P. 2d 1013, 1019

Ar i zona, however , has pl aced l i mi t s on a par t y s st andi

anot her . To have st andi ng t o sue, a pl ai nt i f f m

suf f er ed i nj ur y i n f act, economi c or ot her wi se,


10/36

Ar i z. 138, 140, 6, 108 P. 3d 917, 919 ( 2005) ; Sears,

at 69, 16, 961 P. 2d at 1017; see also A. R. S. 12- 18

( aut hor i zi ng any per son whose ri ght s . . . ar e af f ec

st at ut e t o seek decl ar at or y r el i ef on t he val i di t y

st at ut e and obt ai n a decl ar at i on of r i ght s, st at us

l egal r el at i ons t her eunder ) . Mor eover , whi l e Ar i zona

have a case or cont r over sy r equi r ement t o est abl i sh

Sears, 192 Ar i z. at 71, 24, 961 P. 2d at 1019, Ar i zo

have ar t i cul at ed a prudent i al component of st andi

mat t er of j udi ci al r est r ai nt t o ensur e t hat t he j udi ci

does not i mper mi ssi bl y i nt r ude on t he power s of t

br anches of government under our separat i on of powers

Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ar i z. 520, 525, 19, 81

316 (2003) ; see also Brownlow, 211 Ar i z. at 195, 14,

at 462; Takata, 210 Ar i z. at 140, 6, 108 P. 3d at 919

supr eme cour t st at ed i n Bennett v. Napolitano, [ t ] h

has, as a mat t er of sound j udi ci al pol i cy, r equi r ed

seeki ng r edr ess i n t he cour t s f i r st t o est abl i sh

especi al l y i n act i ons i n whi ch const i t ut i onal r el i ef

agai nst t he gover nment . 206 Ar i z. at 524, 16, 81


11/36

bet ween t r ue adver sar i es. Brownlow, 211 Ar i z. at 19

119 P. 3d at 463.

11 Despi t e di f f er ences bet ween f eder al and st at er equi r ement s, we have pr evi ousl y f ound f eder al

i nstr uct i ve. Takata, 210 Ar i z. at 141, 11, 108 P. 3

( quot i ng Bennett, 206 Ar i z. at 525, 22, 81 P. 3d

Feder al cour t s must f i nd Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng. Vall

Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Ch

State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471- 72 ( 1982) ; Allen v. Wr

U. S. 737, 750- 51 ( 1984) ; see Bennett, 206 Ar i z. at 525,

P. 3d at 316 ( hol di ng t hat t he cor e component s r eq

establ i sh Art i cl e I I I s tandi ng are i nj ury t hat i s : ( 1

t r aceabl e t o t he def endant s al l egedl y unl awf ul condu

( 2) l i kel y t o be r edr essed by t he r equest ed r el i ef ) ; 8

Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct . 1

( 2011) ( st at i ng t hat [ t ] he mi ni mum const i t ut i onal r eq

f or st andi ng wer e expl ai ned i n Lujan v. Defenders of

504 U. S. 555 [ ( 1992) ] . ) .

12 I n addi t i on, f eder al cour t s subscri be t oj udi ci al l y i mposed l i mi t s on st andi ng based on p


12/36

concer ns: a pl ai nt i f f cannot r ai se anot her per son s r i

r i ght must be per sonal t o t he pl ai nt i f f ; gener al i zed g

ar e more appr opr i at el y addr essed i n t he repr esent at i ve

and t he compl ai nant must f al l wi t hi n t he zone of

pr otect ed by the l aw i nvoked. Valley Forge, 454 U. S

75; Allen, 468 U. S. at 751; see also Mullin v. Susse

Delaware, 861 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 ( D. Del . 2012) ( I n

t o est abl i shi ng Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng, a par t y must

pr udent i al st andi ng. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks o

Pr udent i al pr i nci pl es bear a cl ose r el at i onshi p t o t he

r ef l ected i n t he Ar t . I I I r equi r ement of actual or t

i nj ur y amenabl e t o j udi ci al r emedy. . . . That r e

st at es a l i mi t at i on on j udi ci al power , not mer el y a f ac

bal anced i n t he wei ghi ng of so- cal l ed pr

consi der at i ons. Valley Forge, 454 U. S. at 475. De

f eder al st andar ds, i t i s f ai r t o say t hat f eder al

st andi ng f or Est abl i shment Cl ause pur poses i s not t he e

consi st ency. See id. ( We need not mi nce wor ds when we

t he concept of Ar t . I I I st andi ng has not been def

compl et e consi st ency i n al l of t he var i ous cases deci de


13/36

13 I n appl yi ng t hese st andar ds, we must car ef ul la compl ai nant s al l egat i ons t o ascer t ai n whet her t he p

pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o an adj udi cat i on of t he p

cl ai ms asser t ed. Allen, 468 U. S. at 752. I n Est a

Cl ause cases, t he concept of concr et e i nj ur y can be par

el usi ve because the Est abl i shment Cl ause i s pr i mar i l y

pr ot ect i ng non- economi c i nt er est s of a spi r i t ual , as o

a physi cal or pecuni ar y, nat ur e. Catholic League for

& Civil Rights v. City & County of San Francisco, 624 F

1049 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Vasquez, 487 F. 3d at 1

also Ariz. Civil Liberties Union v. Dunham, 112 F. Supp

929 ( D. Ar i z. 2000) ( ci t i ng ci r cui t cour t s cas

acknowl edge t hat t he i nj ur y necessary t o est abl i sh st

Est abl i shment Cl ause cases i s a di f f i cul t and el usi ve c

Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F. 3d 1111, 1120 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) .

II. Injury

14 Appel l ant s argue t he super i or cour t edi smi ssi ng t hei r compl ai nt wi t h pr ej udi ce because t

st andi ng as t axpayer s and as ci t i zens suf f er i ng i nt ang

pal pabl e har m by t he Gover nor s pr ocl amat i ons. We add


14/36

Const i t ut i on when she used her gover nment posi t i on,

her of f i ci al capaci t y f or whi ch she was pai d by publ i c

appr opr i ate and appl y publ i c money and pr oper t y by

r el i gi ous wor shi p, exer ci se or i nst r uct i on, and s

r el i gi ous est abl i shment . On appeal , Appel l ant s ar

t hei r speci f i c al l eged i nj ur y wi t h r espect

const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on i s pecuni ar y i n nat u

speci f i cal l y tax- r el at ed because t hey suf f er ed i nj ur

f or m of t axpayer s dol l ar s bei ng spent on t he pr ocl amat i

16 We r ej ect Appel l ant s cont ent i on becauscompl ai nt di d not al l ege t hey wer e Ar i zona t axpayer s.

t hey ever seek t o amend t hei r compl ai nt t o al l ege suc

Yet Appel l ant s urge t hi s Cour t t o at t r i but e t he

pl eadi ng f ai l ur e t o t he super i or cour t by ar gui ng:

I n an act of got cha j ur i spr udence, t heSuper i or Cour t r el i ed on Appel l ant s f ai l ur et o al l ege taxpayer st andi ng t o di smi ss t hecase, but t hen pr event ed l eave t o amend orr ef i l e by di smi ssi ng t he case wi t hpr ej udi ce. The case s r el evance t o t axpayer

st atus was assert ed numerous t i mes by [ t heFr eedom f r om Rel i gi on Foundat i on] , as wast hei r st at us as such, t hough not f or mal l y sost at ed i n t he compl ai nt .

Rul e 15( a) ( 1) ( B) aut omat i cal l y permi t s an amendment whe


15/36

addi t i on, Appel l ant s never sought l eave of cour t t o am

compl ai nt bef or e i t was di smi ssed, Ar i z. R. Ci v. P. 15(

nor di d t hey seek rel i ef i n a post - t r i al mot i on af t e

di smi ssed, see generally Ar i z. R. Ci v. P. 59, 60.

t her ef or e di si ngenuous t o at t empt t o shi f t bl ame t o t he

cour t f or t hei r f ai l ur e t o pl ead t axpayer st at us

compl ai nt . To t he extent Appel l ant s act i on was di smi s

on t he f ai l ur e t o pl ead t axpayer st andi ng, we f i nd no er

9 We do not addr ess whether Appel l ant s coul d meet t he f or t axpayer st andi ng. However , we note t hat t he t hat a pl ai nt i f f i s a t axpayer i s not gener al l

suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh st andi ng i n f eder al cour t . S. Ct . at 1440. The nar r ow except i on t o t he gener al pri s a t axpayer asser t i ng Est abl i shment Cl ause cl ai ms.1445; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 102- 03 ( 1968) ( ar tt wo- pr ong test t o det er mi ne whether except i on shoul d apalso Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. , 551


16/36

B. Non-pecuniary injury: psychological consequenc

17

Appel l ant s al so ar gue t hat t he i ssuance

pr ocl amat i ons has caused t hem t o suf f er t he f ol l owi ng

out l i ned i n t hei r compl ai nt : sendi ng a message t o non-

t hat t hey ar e not wel come t o f ul l y par t i ci pat e i n g

pr ocesses cr eat i ng a cul t ur e of gover nment - s

r el i gi osi t y whi ch mol est [ s] Appel l ant s and a

envi r onment f or non- bel i evers and many bel i evers, who

t o f eel as i f t hey ar e second cl ass ci t i zens; bei ng

by and subj ected t o t hese unwant ed exhort at i ons t o pr a

r esul t i ng gover nment - sanct i oned cel ebr at i ons of r el i gi o

publ i c real m; i nt er f er i ng wi t h Appel l ant s r i ght s of

consci ence and wi t h t he Freedom f r om Rel i gi on Fou

mi ssi on t o pr ot ect i t s member s f r om vi ol at i ons

Const i t ut i onal pr i nci pl e of separ at i on of chur ch and st a

Appel l ant s r el y on an unpubl i shed deci si on of t heCour t of Appeal s t o suppor t t hei r ar gument t hat t hey

t angi bl e l osses i n t he f or m of t axpayer money bei ng mat er i al s and suppl i es t o cr eat e t he pr ocl amat i onsexpenses f or mai l i ng the pr ocl amat i ons, space on server s t o st or e el ect r oni c copi es, and sal ar i ed membeGover nor s of f i ce expendi ng r esour ces on t he pr ocl amatpar t of t hei r dut i es. Not onl y does t he case r el y on


17/36

18 The Governor ar gues t hat l i ke t he pl ai nt i f f s Forge, Appel l ant s pur por t ed har m amount s t o not hi ng

gener al i zed al l egat i ons t hat t hey di sagr ee w

[ p] r ocl amat i ons and such per cei ved sl i ght or f e

excl usi on does not const i t ut e a concr et e or par t i

i nj ur y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t st andi ng.

19 Whi l e we di sagr ee t hat any pur port ed psychar m i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o conf er st andi ng wi t hout

economi c har m, we agree t hat Appel l ant s al l eged har m

meet Ar i zona s r equi r ement f or di st i nct and pal pabl e

Rat her , t he compl ai nt appear s t o si mpl y pl ead concl usi o

as f act s, mer el y par r ot i ng l anguage f r om t he

Const i t ut i on and cases t o assert a di st i nct and pal pabl

Such concl usor y pl eadi ng i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o def eat a

di smi ss. See Cullen, 218 Ar i z. at 419, 7, 189 P. 3d

Jeter, 211 Ar i z. at 389, 4, 121 P. 3d at 1259. Accor d

concl ude Appel l ant s l ack st andi ng.

20 As di scussed bel ow, what we gl ean f r om Est aCl ause st andi ng cases i s t hat t o pr oper l y al l ege st andi

absence of di r ect i ve conduct ( such as r equi r i ng school


18/36

t he pl ai nt i f f s i nt er act wi t h gover nment . The compl ai nt

meet t hose st andards.

21 Bef or e t ur ni ng t o t hose cases, however , we mdi spose of t he Governor s ar gument t hat t he Supr eme

r ej ected psychol ogi cal har m as suf f i ci ent t o conf er st

t hi s cont ext . The Gover nor r el i es on Valley Forge,

pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t chal l engi ng a t r ansf er of g

pr oper t y i n Pennsyl vani a t o an or gani zat i on r un by a

group. Valley Forge, 454 U. S. at 468- 69. Pl ai nt i

i ndi vi dual r esi dent s of Vi r gi ni a and Mar yl and

or gani zat i on f r om Washi ngt on, D. C. Id. at 486- 87. The

cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment i n f avor of t he def en

t he Thi r d Ci r cui t r ever sed. Id. at 469- 70. Al t hough

of appeal s agr eed t hat pl ai nt i f f s l acked t axpayer st a

ul t i mat el y det er mi ned t hat pl ai nt i f f s had st andi ng m

ci t i zens, cl ai mi ng i nj ur y i n f act t o t hei r shar ed i nd

r i ght t o a gover nment t hat shal l make no l aw r espec

est abl i shment of r el i gi on. Id. at 470 ( i nt er nal

mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Af t er r esol vi ng t he

st andi ng i ssue agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f s, t he Supr eme Cour


19/36


20/36

t o t he i nj ur y pr oduced by mer e observat i on of cond

whi ch one di sagr ees, Valley Forge

, 454 U. S. at 485.

10

23 I ndeed, si nce Valley Forge, f eder al cour epeat edl y hel d i n cases i nvol vi ng r el i gi ous sym

di spl ays, t hat spi r i t ual har m f r om unwel come di r ect con

of f ensi ve r el i gi ous or ant i - r el i gi ous symbol s was suf f i

t he mor e r i gor ous Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng. See Vasquez,

at 1252- 53 ( ci t i ng cases) ; Dunham, 112 F. Supp. 2d a

( ci t i ng cases) ; Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F

1113 ( 10t h Ci r . 2010) ( st at i ng t hat [ a] l l egat i ons of

cont act wi t h a st at e- sponsored i mage suf f i ce to demonst

. di r ect i nj ur y f or pur poses of st andi ng i n Est a

Cl ause cases) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) ; Hinrichs v. Speake

House of Representatives of Ind. Gen. Assembly, 506

590 n. 5 ( 7t h Ci r . 2007) ( I n t he cont ext of an

Est abl i shment Cl ause vi ol at i on . . . al l egat i ons of d

unwel come exposur e t o a r el i gi ous message ar e suf f i

10 Whi l e we di sagr ee wi t h t he Governor , we r ecogni ze di s t i nct i on i n Valley Forge i s, at best , muddl ed. Sefrom Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama, 641 F. 3d 803, Ci r . 2011) ( Wi l l i ams, J . , concur r i ng) ( The Cour t si mpl


21/36

show t he i nj ur y- i n- f act necessar y t o suppor t s

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) ; Newdow v. Bush, 355 F. Supp. 2d

( D. D. C. 2005) ( ci t i ng cases) ; Mullin, 861 F. Supp. 2d

( Pl ai nt i f f s have adequat el y al l eged an i nj ur y i n

al l egi ng di r ect and unwel come exposure t o The Lor d s Pra

24

However , cour t s deal i ng wi t h st andi ng t

Est abl i shment Cl ause chal l enges have det er mi ned t ha

occur s when a pl ai nt i f f t akes st eps t o avoi d a r el i gi ou

i n an ar ea wher e t hey l i ve or wor k or t hat t he

vi ol at i ve conduct i s so per vasi ve t hat i t af f ect s

pl ai nt i f f deal s wi t h gover nment on a pr act i cal , dai l

See, e.g., Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 530

785 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( det er mi ni ng i n case i n whi ch p

sued t he Boy Scout s of Amer i ca al l egi ng t hat t he ci t y s

publ i c par k l and t o t he Boy Scout s vi ol at ed t he r el i gi o

of t he st at e and f eder al const i t ut i ons, t hat t he pl ai nt

shown bot h per sonal emot i onal harm and t he l oss of r ec

enj oyment ) ; Buono v. Norton, 371 F. 3d543, 547 ( 9t h C

( det er mi ni ng t hat unl i ke Valley Forge, pl ai nt i f f s avoi

i nabi l i t y t o f r eel y use publ i c pr oper t y on whi ch a c


22/36

const i t ut i onal er r or . (quot i ng Valley Forge, 454

485) ) . 11

25 Al t er nat i vel y, st andi ng may be conf er r ed wshowi ng of t he pl ai nt i f f avoi di ng t he al l eged

r el i gi ous symbol i f t he vi ol at i on i s so per vasi ve a

t hat i t i s a di r ect at t ack on t he pl ai nt i f f s bel i ef

pr act i cal l y af f ect s how t he pl ai nt i f f deal s wi t h go

Thus, i n Catholic League for Religious and Civil Right

and County of San Francisco, t he San Franci sco ci t y

i ssued a non- bi ndi ng r esol ut i on opposi ng t he Vat i can s

t hat t he Cat hol i c ar chdi ocese st ops pl aci ng chi l dr en i

adopt i on wi t h homosexual househol ds. 624 F. 3d 1043, 1

pl ai nt i f f s wer e a Cat hol i c ci vi l r i ght s or gani zat i on

devout Cathol i cs who l i ve i n San Fr anci sco and sued bas

of f i ci al r esol ut i on denounci ng t hei r chur ch and doct

rel i gi on. Id. at 1048. I n f i ndi ng st andi ng, t he

appeal s di st i ngui shed Valley Forge stat i ng: the pl ai nt

ar e not sui ng on t he mer e pr i nci pl e of di sagr eei ng

11 Some f eder al deci si ons s i nce Valley Forge explal t hough a change i n behavi or or af f i r mat i ve avoial l egedl y of f ensi ve conduct i s gener al l y suf f i ci ent t


23/36

Franci sco, but because of t hat ci t y s di r ect at

di spar agement of t hei r r el i gi on. Id. at 1050 n. 26.

expl ai ned f ur t her st at i ng t hat t he psychol ogi cal co

[ i n Valley Forge] was merel y di sagr eement wi t h t he go

but i n t he ot her [ ] [ cases] , f or whi ch t he Cour t i de

suf f i ci ent l y concr et e i nj ur y, t he psychol ogi cal conseq

excl usi on or deni gr at i on on a r el i gi ous basi s wi

pol i t i cal communi t y. Id. at 1052. The cour t s t at ed

r esol ut i on was more compel l i ng t han any of t he r el i gi o

cases because symbol s of t en ar e ambi guous unl i ke t he

of f ensi ve l anguage i n t he r esol ut i on. Id. at 1050.

26 The cour t l i st ed numer ous Supreme Court casesst andi ng was adequat e f or j ur i sdi ct i on i ncl udi ng amon

cases i nvol vi ng: pr ayer at a f oot bal l game; a

i nvocat i on at a gr aduat i on; and a moment of si l ence a

Id. at 1049- 50 ( ci t i ng cases i ncl udi ng Santa Fe Ind

Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290 ( 2000) ( f oot bal l game) ,

Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 ( 1992) ( gr aduat i on) , and Wa

Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38 ( 1985) ( moment of si l ence) ) .

League expl ai ned t hat st andi ng was adequate i n t ho


24/36

af f ected but t he r el i gi ous or i r r el i gi ous sent i ment

pl ai nt i f f s. Id. at 1050.

27 The i nj ury i n Catholic League was sufconcret e because pl ai nt i f f s aver r ed t hat : t hey l i ve

Franci sco; ar e Cat hol i c; have come i n cont act

r esol ut i on; t he r esol ut i on sends a government me

di sappr oval and host i l i t y t owar d t hei r r el i gi ous bel i

sends a cl ear message t hey ar e out si ders and not f ul l m

t he pol i t i cal communi t y t her eby chi l l i ng t hei r a

gover nment , f or ci ng t hem t o cur t ai l t hei r pol i t i cal act

l essen cont act wi t h def endant s. Id. at 1053.

28 I n Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, pl air esi dent and empl oyee of Los Angel es Count y, f i l ed s

t he count y r emoved t he cr oss f r om i t s seal . 487 F. 3d

48. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat i n t he Est abl i shme

cont ext , spi r i t ual har m r esul t i ng f r om unwel come di r ec

wi t h an al l egedl y of f ensi ve r el i gi ous ( or ant i - r el i gi ou

i s a l egal l y cogni zabl e i nj ur y and suf f i ces t o conf e

I I I s tandi ng. Id. at 1253. I nt er pr et i ng t he det er mi

st andi ng i n School District of Abington v. Schempp,


25/36

203, 224 n. 9 ( 1963) , 12 Vasquez st at ed t hat st andi ng e

Schempp because of t he spi r i t ual st ake i n Fi r st

val ues suf f i ci ent t o gi ve st andi ng t o r ai se i ssues c

t he Est abl i shment Cl ause. Id. at 1251 ( quot i ng Assn

Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 154

The cour t det er mi ned t hat Vasquez had st andi ng becaus

Valley Forge, he was a member of t he communi t y where

was l ocat ed, he had f r equent and r egul ar f or ced cont act

seal , and he was di r ect l y af f ect ed. Id. at 1251;

Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F. 3d 20, 30 n. 4 ( 2d Ci

cert. granted, 2013 WL 2149830 (May 20, 2013) ( ci t

communi t y who at t ended ci t y meet i ngs whi ch opened wi t h

had st andi ng t o chal l enge use of pr ayer ) .

29

I n Arizona Civil Liberties Union v. Dun

di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned pl ai nt i f f s had st andi ng t o b

agai nst t he mayor of t he Town of Gi l ber t f or i ssui ng

Week pr ocl amat i on. 112 F. Supp. 2d at 933- 34. Pl ai nt

t he Ar i zona Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on and t hr ee i ndi vi dual

of Gi l ber t . Id. at 927. Emphasi zi ng t he i mpor

pl ai nt i f f s pr oxi mi t y to t he har m, t he cour t di st i ngu


26/36

pl ai nt i f f s i nj ury wi t h t he i nj ury i n Valley Forge, st a

i f pl ai nt i f f s had l i ved hundr eds of mi l es away, r ead ab

Week, and f ound i t of f ensi ve t o t hei r bel i ef

const i t ut i onal mandat es, i t woul d amount t o the t ype

i nj ury art i cul at ed i n Valley Forge. Id. at 933. T

not ed t hat pl ai nt i f f s al so pr ovi ded i ndependent

ver i f yi ng t hei r f eel i ngs of bei ng shunned, conf i r

l egi t i macy of f eel i ngs of excl usi on, whi ch t he cour t

woul d be enhanced due t o t hei r r esi dency i n Gi l ber t .

934.

30 The har m i n Dunham was suf f i ci ent l y i ndi vbecause i n addi t i on t o thei r commi t ment t o t he separ

chur ch and st at e, t he pl ai nt i f f s f el t unwel come and ex

t he t own wher ei n t hey resi de; an i ndi vi dual i nj ur y that

af f ected t hem. Id. at 933. The i nj ur y i n Dunham

compar abl e to a f eel i ng of second- cl ass ci t i zenshi p

court t hought may be enhanced because t he pr ocl ama

i ssued by the t own s hi ghest el ect ed of f i ci al , t he may

at 932.

31 Fi nal l y, i n Newdow v. Bush, t he pl ai nt i f f al l


27/36

i naugur at i ons bef or e, was goi ng t o at t end t he 2004 i na

and woul d at t end more i n t he f ut ur e, he st ated

par t i cul ar i zed and concr et e i nj ur y t han t he gener al pub

pot ent i al l y t r ansf or m[ ed] hi s i nj ur y f r om an abst r ac

concern f or obedi ence t o the l aw i nt o a more conc

par t i cul ar i zed i nj ur y. Id. ( i nt er nal quot at i ons

Acknowl edgi ng t hat Newdow pur chased a t i cket and pl ann

at t he i naugur at i on t he cour t st at ed: [ t ] her e i s a l

quest i on whether Newdow has est abl i shed a personal co

wi t h t he I naugur at i on. Id.

at 279.

The cour t

concl uded t hat Newdow had a col or abl e cl ai m of i nj ur y- i n

32 Appel l ant s compl ai nt meet s nei t her t hst andar ds nor t he si mi l ar st andi ng r equi r ement s unde

casel aw. Unl i ke Catholic League, t he pr ocl amat i ons a

di r ect at t ack on t he Appel l ant s speci f i c bel i ef

Unl i ke Buono, t her e i s no al l egat i on t hat t he Appel l an

change t hei r behavi or t o avoi d t he pr ocl amat i ons

Vasquez, Dunham, and Newdow, t her e i s no al l egat i on

pr ocl amat i ons af f ect ed how t he Appel l ant s deal t wi

gover nment . I ndeed, t her e i s no al l egat i on r egar di ng


28/36

Appel l ant s even l ear ned about t he pr ocl amat i ons or

al l eged har m t o t hem was anythi ng more t han a gener al f

second- cl ass ci t i zenshi p and out si der st at us.

Appel l ant s si mpl y t ook l anguage and concl usory l abel s

Ar i zona Const i t ut i on ( mol est i ng) and var i ous cases

cl ass ci t i zenshi p and out si der st at us) t o at t empt

f act s f or s t andi ng. As we have expl ai ned, we wi l l onl y

wel l - pl ed f act s as t r ue, not l egal concl usi ons i n t he

f act s. Jeter, 211 Ar i z. at 389, 4, 121 P. 3d

Concl usory al l egat i ons of l aw and unwar r ant ed i nf er en

not def eat an ot her wi se pr oper l y f i l ed mot i on t o

Vasquez, 487 F. 3d at 1249; see also Awad, 670 F. 3d at

t he cont ext of al l eged vi ol at i ons of t he Est abl i shmen

[ t he Tent h Ci r cui t ] has hel d t hat st andi ng i s cl ear l y

by non- economi c r el i gi ous val ues. . . . [ However , ] p

al l egi ng non- economi c i nj ur y must be di r ect l y af f ect e

l aws and pr act i ces agai nst whi ch t hei r compl ai nt s are d

( i nt er nal ci t at i on and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

33 As t he above cases i l l ust r at e, i ndi vi dual imust be shown r ather t han harm al l egedl y suf f ered by th


29/36

id. at 70, 21, 961 P. 2d at 1018 ( di st i ngui shi ng a

st at i ng t hat st andi ng i n t hat case exi st ed because t he

al l eged a har m t hat was di st i nct f r om t hat suf f er e

gener al publ i c not wi t hst andi ng t hat ot her peopl e i n pl

i mmedi ate nei ghborhood suf f ered t he same i nj ur y) ; Ce

Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council, 214 A

358, 20, 153 P. 3d 374, 379 ( App. 2007) ( st at i ng damag

pecul i ar t o t he pl ai nt i f f , and mor e subst ant i al t

suf f er ed by t he communi t y at l ar ge) .

34Her e, t he compl ai nt cont ends onl y t

pr ocl amat i ons at t acked t he [ i ndi vi dual s ] pr ot ect e

f r om mol est at i on i n per son or pr oper t y on account of h

mode of r el i gi ous wor shi p, or l ack of [ t he] same. A

have of f er ed no expl anat i on why t hei r f eel i ng of of f en

gr eat er t han t hat of a l ar ge segment of t he gener al p

how such pur port ed psychol ogi cal harm amount ed t o a di s

pal pabl e i nj ur y. Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t hey l ack st

br i ng t hei r compl ai nt .

III. Waiving the standing requirement

35 Wi t hout ci t at i on t o aut hor i t y, Appel l ant s r eq


30/36

Rel yi ng on Sears, 192 Ar i z. at 71- 72, 25- 29, 961

1019- 20, t he Governor argues t hat t he ci r cumst ances her

except i onal and do not i nvol ve i ssues of gr eat

i mpor t ance. We concl ude t her e i s no basi s t o wai ve

r equi r ement s.

36 As di scussed above, because st andi ng i sconst i t ut i onal mandat e i n Ar i zona, t he st andi ng r equi r

be wai ved i f t her e ar e except i onal ci r cumst ances, su

cases of cr i t i cal publ i c i mpor t ance. Bennett, 206 Ar i z

31, 81 P. 3d at 318 ( decl i ni ng r evi ew f or l ack of

expl ai ni ng t hat supr eme cour t s r evi ew of mer i t s i n a

case where t here was a l ack of st andi ng shoul d not be

an i ndi cat i on t he cour t wi l l engage i n such r evi ew i n t

wi t hout pl ai nt i f f f i r st establ i shi ng standi ng) ; Sears,

at 71, 24, 961 P. 2d at 1019 ( l i st i ng cases exempl i

l i mi t ed and except i onal ci r cumst ances where st andi ng

wai ved) ; Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale, 148 Ar i z.

n. 1, 714 P. 2d 386, 387 n. 1 ( 1986) ( wai vi ng st andi ng r e

because case i nvol ved cl ai m t hat st at ut e gover ni ng p

f or muni ci pal annexat i on vi ol at ed t he equal pr ot ect i o


31/36

st andi ng t o asser t t hei r pr i vacy cl ai m, but t he cour t c

t hat cl ai m al ong wi t h t he due pr ocess cl ai ms bec

chal l enge occur r ed i n conj unct i on wi t h a const i t ut i on

pr oper l y ar gued and r equi r ed t he cour t t o det er

const i t ut i onal i t y of a st at ut e t hat had not y

i nt er pr et ed) . Ar i zona cour t s have r ar el y appl i ed t h

except i on t o wai ve the st andi ng requi r ement . Brown

Ar i z. at 195- 96, 15, 119 P. 3d at 462- 63; Bennett, 206

527, 31, 81 P. 3d at 318.

37 I n Sears, our supr eme cour t r ef used t o wst andi ng r equi r ement i n a case i nvol vi ng pl ai nt i f f s

t o the Governor s ent r y i nt o a gami ng compact wi t h a

t r i be. 192 Ar i z. at 67, 1, 961 P. 2d at 1015. T

det er mi ned t hat , unl i ke t he cases i n whi ch i t ha

st andi ng, t her e wer e no i ssues of gr eat publ i c i mpo

j ust i f y wai vi ng t he st andi ng r equi r ement . Id. at 72,

P. 2d at 1020 ( [ T] he Sear s opposi t i on t o gami ng a

i nt er pr et at i on of t he st at ut es i nvol ved, ar e not of s

moment or publ i c i mport ance as t o convi nce us t o cons

chal l enge t o execut i ve conduct . ) .


32/36

convi nce us t o consi der t hi s chal l enge t o execut i ve

Id. Appel l ant s i nj ur i es ar e l ar gel y unar t i cul at ed an

of al l eged f acts t o show suf f i ci ent i nj ur y i t sel f

pr event s Appel l ant s f r om est abl i shi ng st andi ng her e.

above, Appel l ant s coul d have pl ed st andi ng and coul d ha

t o amend t hei r compl ai nt t o so pl ead a f act ual b

st andi ng, but decl i ned t o do so even i n t he f ace

Gover nor s mot i on. To f i nd a basi s t o wai ve

r equi r ement s i n t hi s cont ext woul d r esul t i n t he l i m

f or wai ver t aki ng pr ecedence over t he st andi ng req

t hemsel ves. We t her ef or e decl i ne t o wai ve t he

r equi r ement . 14

14 Gi ven our concl usi on t he Appel l ant s l acked st andi ngdi d not seek t o al l ege taxpayer st andi ng, and t he r equi r ement s shoul d not be wai ved, we do not addGover nor s argument s t hat t he compl ai nt i s moot or t hat


33/36

CONCLUSION

39 For t he r easons st at ed above, we af f i r m t hecour t s di smi ssal of t he compl ai nt .

/ S/DONN KESSLER, J udge

CONCURRI NG:

/ S/MAURI CE PORTLEY, Pr esi di ng J udge

/ S/LAWRENCE F. WI NTHROP, Chi ef J udge

APPENDIX A


34/36


35/36


36/36

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mhendleynt
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

FREEDOM v. BREWER

Documents