Zivotofsky Ex Rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton

2012-03-26

Headline: Court allows judges to decide whether Congress can require passports to list “Israel” for U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, reversing the appeals court and sending the dispute back for further proceedings.

Holding: The Court held that federal courts may decide whether a law requires the State Department to list “Israel” as the birthplace on passports for Americans born in Jerusalem and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Real World Impact:

Allows courts to review passport birthplace rules for Jerusalem births.
Could require the State Department to change passport entries if statute is upheld.
Creates potential diplomatic and foreign-policy consequences depending on outcome.

Topics: passport rules, Jerusalem and Israel, foreign policy, Congress vs. President

Summary

Background

An American child born in Jerusalem and his parents asked the State Department to list his place of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel” on his passport and consular report. Congress had passed a law, §214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (2003), saying U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem may have “Israel” recorded as their birthplace. The State Department followed its long-standing policy of recording only “Jerusalem,” and lower courts dismissed the family’s case as a political question the courts could not decide.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the federal courts can decide if §214(d) must be given effect or is unconstitutional because it intrudes on the President’s foreign-affairs powers. The majority said courts are competent to resolve that statutory and constitutional question. The Court explained that enforcing or invalidating a statute is a traditional judicial task, and because the parties do not dispute the statute’s meaning, the question left is the statute’s constitutionality. The Court therefore reversed the D.C. Circuit and sent the case back for the lower courts to consider the merits.

Real world impact

The decision lets judges consider whether Americans born in Jerusalem may have “Israel” listed on passports, a change that could affect thousands of Americans and carry diplomatic consequences. The ruling is not a final answer on whether passports must change; the case returns to lower courts to decide whether the law is constitutional and enforceable.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. One concurrence urged a narrower legal inquiry. Another stressed stricter standards for political-question cases. A dissent argued prudential foreign-policy concerns and would have left the case nonjusticiable.