Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky vs Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Citation: 566 U.S. 189 (2012)
Jurisdiction : United States of America
Appellant: Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky [By His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky]
Respondent: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Facts :
Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in 2002 in Jerusalem to American parents. Congress, through Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (2002), authorized American citizens born in Jerusalem to request that their passport and Consular Report of Birth Abroad list their place of birth as “Israel.” The U.S. Department of State refused to implement this provision and maintained its longstanding policy of recording only “Jerusalem,” in order to preserve U.S. neutrality regarding the city’s disputed international status.
Zivotofsky’s parents filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State seeking enforcement of the statute. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and on the ground that it raised a non-justiciable political question. The D.C. Circuit later held that Zivotofsky did have standing but again dismissed the case on political question grounds, reasoning that the issue implicated the President’s exclusive authority over foreign recognition. Zivotofsky subsequently appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues :
1. Whether Zivotofsky’s claim presents a political question beyond judicial review.
2. Whether the courts can decide if Section 214(d) is constitutional, even though it requires the Executive to list “Israel” for citizens born in Jerusalem and may affect the President’s exclusive recognition power.
Arguments :
Appellant’s Arguments:
Zivotofsky argued that Congress acted within its constitutional powers when it enacted Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which allowed U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to have “Israel” listed as their place of birth on passports. He maintained that recording a birthplace is an administrative, identification-related matter and does not constitute recognition of a foreign state. He emphasized that Congress has authority over citizenship and passports, and that the statute simply directs the Executive to follow the law without making a foreign policy judgment. Zivotofsky contended that the courts can review whether the statute is constitutional, as this involves interpreting a law rather than making foreign policy decisions, and that the political question doctrine does not bar judicial review in this context.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Government argued that enforcing Section 214(d) would effectively force the President to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel, violating the Executive’s exclusive foreign recognition power. It claimed the matter was a classic political question outside judicial review. The Executive maintained that requiring “Israel” to appear in passports would intrude on the President’s constitutional authority to recognize foreign countries, particularly given the political sensitivity of Jerusalem. It further argued that passport country designations are matters of foreign policy and that compelling such a designation would conflict with the longstanding U.S. position of neutrality on Jerusalem. The Executive also asserted that courts lack judicially manageable standards for resolving such foreign affairs disputes, and that political branches have nonjudicial means to address such disagreements. Finally, it contended that Zivotofsky’s interest was largely ideological rather than a fundamental legal right, reinforcing the view that the courts should not intervene.
Decisions :
The Supreme Court held that the case was justiciable. It concluded that Zivotofsky’s claim did not ask the judiciary to decide the sovereignty of Jerusalem, but simply to determine whether a statute conflicts with the Constitution, a duty grounded in Marbury v. Madison. The Court emphasized that the involvement of foreign affairs does not convert the issue into a political question, and that the judiciary can conduct constitutional review when judicially manageable standards exist. Accordingly, the Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for a determination on the merits. Justice Alito concurred, stressing that resolving constitutional questions is a routine judicial function. Justice Breyer dissented, advocating judicial restraint given the foreign affairs sensitivities at stake. The dissenting opinions, authored by Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan, cautioned that the Court was entering a “political thicket” better left to elected officials, and Harlan further contended that the Constitution did not require absolute equality in district populations.
Relevant Legal Principle :
Doctrine of Political Questions: The Doctrine of Political Questions recognizes that some issues are more appropriately resolved by the political branches, either the executive or the legislature, rather than by the courts. Under this principle, the judiciary refrains from intervening in matters that require political discretion, policy judgment, or lack clear legal standards. It reflects the understanding that certain questions are so politically sensitive that they lie beyond the proper role of an apolitical judiciary.
Relevant Laws :
- The Constitution of the United States
- The Foreign Relations Authorization Act (2002) (USA)
- Section: 214(d)
Author :
1. Saraf Al Sakif
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
