Zivotofsky v. Kerry
Headline: Court limits Congress’s power by blocking law that would force passports to list 'Israel' for U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, siding with the President and affecting Jerusalem-born Americans' passport entries.
Holding:
- Stops Congress from forcing 'Israel' passport birthplace entries for Jerusalem-born Americans.
- Allows President and State Department to keep listing 'Jerusalem' on passports.
- Limits Congress's power to control executive diplomatic statements in recognition matters.
Summary
Background
A U.S. child born in Jerusalem and his parents asked the State Department to list his place of birth as "Israel" on his passport. Congress had passed §214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003, which would require the Secretary of State to record "Israel" for citizens born in Jerusalem upon request. The President and the State Department instead followed longstanding policy of listing "Jerusalem" because the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over the city. The dispute reached the federal courts and the case returned to this Court after earlier proceedings.
Reasoning
The Court asked two simple questions: who has the power to recognize foreign countries, and can Congress force the President to contradict his prior recognition position in official papers? Relying on the Constitution’s text, structure, historical practice, and prior cases, the majority concluded that the President has the exclusive authority to make formal recognition determinations. Because §214(d) would compel the Executive, through its passport forms, to state a position conflicting with the President’s recognition policy on Jerusalem, the Court held that Congress may not require the President or his agents to make that contradictory statement in passports.
Real world impact
The ruling means Jerusalem-born Americans cannot force the Government to require "Israel" on passports against the President's recognition policy; the State Department may continue to record "Jerusalem" or allow city-only entries. The decision is narrow: it bars Congress from commanding the Executive to contradict a formal recognition position, but it does not eliminate Congress’s broad role in foreign affairs generally.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices issued separate opinions: one Justice agreed in result though would treat the case as nonjusticiable; others concurred only in part or dissented, arguing for greater congressional authority over passports or rejecting the idea the President may defy a law.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?