Zivotofsky v. Kerry
135 S. Ct. 2076
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Jerusalem’s status is a sensitive, lingering foreign-policy issue central to executive neutrality policy.
- The President historically has exclusive power to recognize foreign states or governments; Congress has not spoken with a unified foreign-recognition policy against that framework.
- State Department practice lists Jerusalem as the place of birth when sovereignty over the area is contested, reflecting neutrality; citizens may list city instead, but not a competing sovereign.
- The 2002 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, §214(d) directed the Secretary of State to record birthplace as Israel for someone born in Jerusalem upon request, effectively overriding policy for passports.
- Zivotofsky, a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem, challenged §214(d) as applied to passports and consular birth reports; the district court dismissed, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal on standing/political-question grounds, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Court held §214(d) unconstitutional as applied to passports but constitutionally applicable to consular birth reports, with separate reasoning and dissenting opinions addressing power allocation and historical practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §214(d) violate the President’s exclusive recognition power? | Zivotofsky argues Congress may override recognition decisions. | State defends Congress’s power to regulate birth-record documents and passports. | Unconstitutional as applied to passports. |
| Is §214(d) valid as applied to consular reports of birth abroad? | Zivotofsky contends Congress cannot distinguish power between documents. | Congress may regulate birth records under naturalization powers. | Constitutional as applied to consular birth reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) (political question and executive-branch deference principles in foreign relations)
- Pink v. United States, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (recognition and executive-dominant foreign relations power)
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) (Congress may delegate power in foreign affairs; no blanket executive supremacy)
- Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) (passport-related travel rights tied to congressional authority)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (limits on executive power in foreign affairs when domestic obligations exist)