Zivotofsky Ex Rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton
182 L. Ed. 2d 423 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
Facts
Congress enacted a statute, Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, allowing U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to elect to have "Israel" listed as their place of birth on passports. The State Department, however, maintained a policy of not taking a position on Jerusalem's political status and directed officials to list only "JERUSALEM" on passports. President George W. Bush expressed concerns that the statute, if mandatory, interfered with his constitutional authority over foreign affairs. Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem in 2002 to American parents. His mother requested his passport and consular report of birth abroad list his birthplace as "Jerusalem, Israel," but U.S. officials refused, issuing documents that listed only "Jerusalem."
Procedural history
Zivotofsky's parents filed a complaint against the Secretary of State after being denied a passport listing "Israel" as his birthplace. The District Court dismissed the complaint, citing lack of standing and the political question doctrine. The D.C. Circuit reversed on standing but later affirmed the District Court's dismissal on political question grounds, arguing the Executive has exclusive power over foreign sovereign recognition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the political question determination.
Issue
Does a lawsuit challenging the State Department's refusal to list "Israel" as the birthplace on a U.S. citizen's passport, as permitted by a federal statute, present a nonjusticiable political question? Specifically, do courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of such a statute, or is it exclusively committed to the Executive Branch?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the case does not present a political question and is justiciable. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, allowing lower courts to consider the merits.
Rule
The political question doctrine is a narrow exception to judicial review, applicable only where there is a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" or "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it." When a statute's constitutionality is challenged, it is the Judiciary's duty to interpret the law and determine its validity, even if the issues have political implications or involve the powers of other branches. The constitutionality of a statute is a decision for the courts, not Congress or the Executive.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.