## Facts

- Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, a U.S. citizen, was born in Jerusalem in 2002.
- His mother sought a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and a passport listing his place of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel.”
- The State Department refused to record “Israel,” following a long-standing policy to list only “Jerusalem” for U.S. citizens born there.
- Congress enacted § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, directing that, upon request, the Secretary of State “shall” record the place of birth as “Israel” for a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem.
- The Executive asserted that listing “Israel” for Jerusalem births would affect sensitive foreign-affairs matters concerning Jerusalem’s status and U.S. diplomacy.

## Issues

1. Whether the political question doctrine barred federal courts from adjudicating a claim seeking enforcement of § 214(d)’s passport birthplace directive for a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem.
2. Whether the case presented a question constitutionally committed to the political branches or lacked judicially manageable standards.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was justiciable and not barred by the political question doctrine.
- The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s judgment and remanded for consideration of the merits, including whether § 214(d) is constitutional.
- The Court framed the dispute as a familiar judicial task: determining whether a federal statute creates an enforceable right and, if so, whether the statute is consistent with the Constitution.
- The Court rejected the lower courts’ characterization that resolving the case required deciding Jerusalem’s sovereign status or formulating U.S. recognition policy.
- Justice Breyer dissented, concluding the dispute should be dismissed as a political question given foreign-relations consequences and the need for a single national position.

## Legal Principles

- A case is nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine only when there is (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department, or (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.
- Determining the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is a core judicial function and is generally subject to judicial review even when the dispute arises in a foreign-affairs setting.
- The presence of foreign-policy sensitivities does not, by itself, convert a statutory and constitutional dispute into a political question.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts may decide whether § 214(d) can be enforced and whether it is constitutional, vacating the dismissal on political question grounds and remanding for merits review.


Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012)