## Facts

- A U.S. citizen was born in Jerusalem in 2002 to U.S.-citizen parents.
- The Executive Branch maintained a longstanding policy of neutrality on sovereignty over Jerusalem and instructed the State Department to record “Jerusalem” as the birthplace on passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, without naming a country.
- Congress enacted § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, directing the Secretary of State, upon request, to record the place of birth for a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem as “Israel” on passports and consular birth reports.
- The citizen’s parent requested “Jerusalem, Israel” on both documents; consular officials refused and issued documents listing only “Jerusalem.”
- The citizen, through his parents, sued to compel the Secretary of State to comply with § 214(d).

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff had Article III standing to seek enforcement of § 214(d) against the Secretary of State.
2. Whether the claim was barred by the political question doctrine because adjudication would require resolving questions committed to the political branches concerning recognition and Jerusalem’s status.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held the plaintiff had standing because Congress created an individual statutory right to have “Israel” recorded upon request, and denial of that right constituted a concrete injury traceable to the Secretary and redressable by an order.
- The court nevertheless affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on political question grounds.
- The court reasoned that ordering the requested designation would effectively require a judicial determination bearing on whether Jerusalem is part of Israel and would conflict with the Executive’s recognition-related policy of neutrality.

## Legal Principles

- A congressionally conferred individual right, coupled with an alleged denial by an executive official, can constitute injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing.
- Standing and the political question doctrine are distinct inquiries; a plaintiff may have standing even if the controversy is nonjusticiable.
- Claims are nonjusticiable when their resolution would intrude on matters constitutionally committed to the political branches, including core foreign-affairs and recognition determinations.
- Courts may decline to adjudicate disputes lacking judicially manageable standards and presenting a substantial risk of interfering with, or contradicting, the nation’s official foreign-policy posture.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit concluded that although § 214(d) gave the plaintiff standing to complain about the Secretary’s refusal to record “Israel,” deciding whether a court could compel that designation would force judicial involvement in recognition-related foreign policy concerning Jerusalem; the case was therefore dismissed as a political question.


Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 571 F.3d 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2009)