Conference of Presidents v. City of Philadelphia

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJanuary 27, 2023
Docket22-1116
StatusUnpublished

This text of Conference of Presidents v. City of Philadelphia (Conference of Presidents v. City of Philadelphia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conference of Presidents v. City of Philadelphia, (3d Cir. 2023).

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 22-1116 _______________

CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF MAJOR ITALIAN AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS, INC.; MARK F. SQUILLA, PHILADELPHIA CITY COUNCILMEMBER; THE 1492 SOCIETY; JODY DELLA BARBA, Appellants

GRAND LODGE OF PENNSYLVANIA SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF ITALY

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; MAYOR JAMES F. KENNEY _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01609) District Judge: Honorable C. Darnell Jones II _______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a): January 18, 2023 _______________

Before: AMBRO, PORTER, and FREEMAN Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 27, 2023)

______________

OPINION

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. PORTER, Circuit Judge.

Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney issued an executive order rescinding the city’s

recognition of Columbus Day and redesignating the holiday as Indigenous People’s Day.

A group of Italian Americans sued Mayor Kenney and the City of Philadelphia for

depriving them of equal protection of the laws. The District Court dismissed their

complaint after it found that they had alleged no injury-in-fact. We will affirm.

I

The federal government observes Columbus Day on the second Monday in

October to commemorate “the anniversary of the discovery of America.” H.J. Res. 10,

73d Cong. (1934) (enacted), see J.A. 52; 5 U.S.C. § 6103. Until 2021, the city of

Philadelphia similarly marked Columbus Day as a city holiday. In recognition of

Christopher Columbus’s Italian heritage, the Philadelphia City Council traditionally

designates the week of the holiday as “Italian American Heritage Week.” And since

1957, the city has conducted an annual Columbus Day Parade.

On January 27, 2021, Mayor Kenney issued Executive Order 2-21 replacing

Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day. J.A. 43-44 and Exhibit A hereto. The

Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations, Inc. (COPOMIAO),

Philadelphia Councilmember Mark Squilla, the 1492 Society, and the 1492 Society

secretary Jody Della Barba (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) took offense.1 They view Executive

1 COPOMIAO is a New York nonprofit that represents forty-six Italian American organizations across the country including in Pennsylvania. Squilla is an Italian American councilmember for Philadelphia’s First District. The 1492 Society is a Pennsylvania

2 Order 2-21 to be the latest act in a pattern of hostility by Mayor Kenney against Italian

Americans. According to Plaintiffs, additional evidence of Kenney’s discriminatory

animus includes: removing a statue of Italian American mayor and police commissioner

Frank Rizzo from the Municipal Services Building; refusing to return the statue to its

owner, the Frank L. Rizzo Monument Committee; making preparations to remove a

Christopher Columbus statue in Marconi Plaza; referring to Italian Americans who

challenged the Columbus statue’s removal as “vigilantes”; reassigning police captain Lou

Campione from his South Philadelphia command; omitting a zip code with a high

concentration of Italian Americans from a COVID-19 vaccination list; and using

derogatory language towards Italian Americans.

Plaintiffs sued Philadelphia and Mayor Kenney in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that they violated the Equal Protection

Clause by redesignating Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. They asked the

District Court to nullify Executive Order 2-21 and hold it unconstitutional, stop the city

from changing the holiday, and declare that Italian Americans are a protected class.

The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of standing because Plaintiffs failed

to plead an injury-in-fact. Plaintiffs timely appealed.2 We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291.

nonprofit based in Philadelphia that sponsors the Columbus Day parade and festival. Della Barba is an Italian American secretary of the 1492 Society and its parade organizer. 2 The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania intervened on the side of the plaintiff in District Court. The Grand Lodge did not file a notice of appeal and was not named in the

3 II

We review de novo a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In

re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir. 2017). In

their motion to dismiss, Kenney and Philadelphia facially attacked the sufficiency of

Plaintiffs’ complaint. We apply the same Rule 12(b)(6) standard on review, accepting all

well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in

Plaintiffs’ favor. Id. at 632–33 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

III

Article III of the Constitution limits our judicial power to “cases” and

“controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. We apply the doctrine of standing to identify

those suits that are justiciable under Article III as cases or controversies. See Whitmore v.

Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). Whether a party has Article III standing to sue is the

“threshold inquiry in every case.” Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277, 289 (3d Cir.

2015). The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proving standing. Lujan

v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

To decide standing, we ask three questions. Has the plaintiff suffered an injury-in-

fact? Id. at 560. Is the injury “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant”?

Id (internal ellipses and brackets omitted). And is the injury “likely” to be “redressed by a

appeal filed by COPOMIAO, Squilla, the 1492 Society, and Della Barba. Its claims are dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(A).

4 favorable decision”? Id. at 561 (quotation omitted). A plaintiff has standing when all

three questions are affirmatively answered.

An injury-in-fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that must be “(a)

concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Id. at 560 (internal quotation and citations omitted). The burden of alleging an injury-in-

fact is low. Hassan, 804 F.3d at 289. A discriminatory classification may qualify as an

injury-in-fact when “a citizen’s right to equal treatment is at stake.” Id. at 289–90 (citing

Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S.

656, 657 (1993)). See also Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives, 936

F.3d 142, 160 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Moore v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ross v. Moffitt
417 U.S. 600 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas
495 U.S. 149 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
551 U.S. 587 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Syed Hassan v. City of New York
804 F.3d 277 (Third Circuit, 2015)
Carlos Moore v. Dewey Bryant
853 F.3d 245 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc.
836 F.2d 173 (Third Circuit, 1988)
American Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n
588 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Conference of Presidents v. City of Philadelphia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conference-of-presidents-v-city-of-philadelphia-ca3-2023.