Zivotofsky Ex Rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421

Congress enacted §214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FY 2003) to require that Jerusalem-born U.S. citizens have the place of birth listed as Israel upon request for passport documents.
State Department policy and manual entries instructed passport officials to list Jerusalem (not Israel) as the birthplace in passports for Jerusalem-born individuals in disputed territory.
President Bush signing statement suggested §214(d) could interfere with the President’s foreign affairs and recognition powers, asserting policy had not changed.
Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem shortly after §214(d) was enacted; his parents sought to list his birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel, on his passport and CRBA, but the State Department policy prevented this.
The District Court dismissed for lack of standing and political-question nonjusticiability; the D.C. Circuit reversed, raising questions about justiciability and the merits of §214(d).
The Supreme Court held the case justiciable, vacated the D.C. Circuit judgment, and remanded for merits consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is §214(d) constitutional given presidential recognition powers?	Zivotofsky argues Congress may regulate passport contents without altering recognition power.	State argues §214(d) intrudes on exclusive presidential recognition authority.	Justiciable; court to engage on constitutionality on merits.
Does the political-question doctrine bar judicial review?	Zivotofsky contends the claim does not present a nonjusticiable political question.	State contends resolution would intrude into foreign policy with no judicial standards.	Not a political question; case is justiciable and appropriate for merits.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (establishes judicial review of statutes against the Constitution)
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) (Judicial duty to decide law; avoidance of questions not decided below)
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (textual commitments and manageable standards in political questions)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (six-factor framework for political-question analysis)
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (courts may review constitutional authority of legislative actions)
United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (recognition policy and exclusive executive functions in foreign relations)
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (passport authority and executive foreign affairs power)
Nell v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) (prudential limits related to nonjudicial considerations in some cases)
Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849) (historical foreign-relations considerations in constitutional disputes)
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (respect for separate branches; finality of decision in exceptional cases)