Nguyen v. United States

Background

Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen, who represented herself, filed an amended complaint challenging the United States’ support for Israel in its military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. She alleged that Israel was an “apartheid government” and that the United States provided it with billions of dollars in military aid. She claimed that this aid violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause because, in her view, Israel was a state of the Jewish religion. She also initially asserted claims under the Leahy Law, but the opinion states that she abandoned those claims in her opposition to dismissal.

Nguyen requested $5 trillion if a third world war erupted, a letter of apology and an end to U.S. military aid to Israel, or $25,000. She first sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, but later abandoned that request, paid the filing fee, and filed the amended complaint. The court had previously allowed her to amend after screening her original complaint, but had found that the original claims were frivolous and had no plausible basis in law or fact.

Motion and jurisdiction

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court treated the jurisdictional challenge as a facial attack, meaning it considered whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. The court stated that Nguyen, as the party asserting federal jurisdiction, had the burden of establishing it.

Standing

The court held that Nguyen lacked Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

The court found that Nguyen’s challenge expressed only a generally available grievance about government conduct. Nguyen alleged that she suffered anxiety and fear, changed her way of living by staying at home, and considered giving up her U.S. citizenship and returning to Vietnam because she feared a future world war. The court concluded that these alleged injuries were not fairly traceable to the constitutional violations she asserted. Her concerns about a future war and other consequences depended on a speculative chain of events and decisions by independent actors. The court also stated that a plaintiff cannot create standing by harming herself based on fears of hypothetical future harm.

Political-question doctrine

The court also agreed with the United States that the central issue—whether the United States should provide assistance to Israel—was a nonjusticiable political question. The political-question doctrine prevents courts from deciding disputes involving policy choices and value judgments constitutionally assigned to Congress or the executive branch.

Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that decisions about providing military or other aid to a foreign nation are committed to the political branches. It also concluded that Nguyen’s challenge would require the court to reconsider foreign-policy decisions already made by those branches. Because these questions were inseparable from the allegations and claims in the amended complaint, the court stated that the claims had to be dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed Nguyen’s amended complaint without leave to amend, finding that she had already been given an opportunity to amend and that the deficiencies could not be cured by another amendment. The court did not reach the United States’ argument that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. The clerk was directed to close the file.