Zivotofsky v. Clinton

Last updated

Zivotofsky v. Clinton
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 2011
Decided March 26, 2012
Full case nameMenachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, By His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Docket no. 10-699
Citations566 U.S. 189 ( more )
132 S. Ct. 1421; 182 L. Ed. 2d 423; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2536; 80 U.S.L.W. 4260
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, 2004 WL 5835212 (D.D.C. 2004); remanded, 444 F.3d 614 (D.C. Cir. 2006); dismissed again, 511 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.D.C. 2007); affirmed, 571 F.3d 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2009); rehearing en banc denied, 610 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 563 U. S. ___ (2011)
SubsequentSee Zivotofsky v. Kerry for details.
Holding
Reversed. The political-question doctrine does not bar judicial review of Zivotofsky’s claim that his passport should read "Israel."
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kagan
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
ConcurrenceSotomayor (in part), joined by Breyer (Part I)
DissentBreyer
Laws applied
Article I, Section 8

Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that a dispute about passport regulation was not a political question and thus resolvable by the US court system. Specifically, Zivotofsky's parents sought to have his passport read "Jerusalem, Israel", rather than "Jerusalem", as his place of birth. The State Department had rejected that request under a longstanding policy that took no stance on the legal status of Jerusalem. Zivotofsky's parents then sued, citing a Congressional law that ordered the Secretary of State to list people born in Jerusalem as born in Israel.

Contents

In Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the Supreme Court rejected the State Department's claim that issues of foreign policy were inherently political and thus not justiciable by the Courts. The State Department had argued that the case could not be resolved except by adjudicating the status of Jerusalem. The Court found that resolving the Zivotofskys' dispute did not require such analysis, because the constitutionality of the challenged law could be distinguished from the accuracy of the resulting passport listings.

On remand, the Court of Appeals held in July 2013 that the law was an unconstitutional infringement of the president's recognition powers, [1] which would later be appealed back to the Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v. Kerry . [2]

Background

Passport policy changes

In early 2002, Congress passed a passport regulation as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, the annual budget authorization bill for the State Department. [3] The policy (entitled "Record of Place of Birth as Israel for Passport Purposes") stated that "[f]or purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel." [4] This Congress-passed policy directly contradicted the State Department's guidelines which ordered the naming of the city alone when a nation's borders were in dispute. [5] This policy had been applied to citizens born in Jerusalem. [6]

When the act was passed in 2002, Hillary Clinton was a member of the Senate. The act passed by unanimous consent. [7] Clinton was later appointed Secretary of State and was sued in her official capacity over the State Department's refusal to issue a passport in compliance with the act.

When the bill was presented to the President, George W. Bush attached a signing statement to the bill, expressing his belief that the Jerusalem policy passed by Congress would "interfere with the President's constitutional authority to... determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states." [8]

Zivotofsky's suit

Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem on October 17, 2002, after the enactment of the Congress-passed Jerusalem policy. [9] After their request to the State Department for his passport place-of-birth to say "Israel" was denied, his parents filed suit. [10] [11] The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on the grounds that the case brought a nonjusticiable political question. [12] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that the question in the lawsuit had changed to the validity of the Congressional policy, Section 214 of the 2002 Act. [13]

On remand, the District Court again found the case barred as being a political question; the Court said that Zivotofsky's claim would "necessarily require the Court to decide the political status of Jerusalem." [14] On this question, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed, holding that taking any position "on the status of Jerusalem" was not appropriate for judicial review. [15]

Zivotofsky's parents petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to hear the case. The case was subsequently granted. [16]

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the Court, reversing the D.C. Circuit, and holding that Zivotofsky's claim could be reviewed by the courts. [17] "In this case," Roberts wrote, "determining the constitutionality of § 214(d) involves deciding whether the statute impermissibly intrudes upon Presidential powers under the Constitution." [18] Judging the constitutionality of a law in this context would not "turn on standards that defy judicial application" because reviewing the "textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties" is "what courts do." [19] For this reason, even though such a decision may touch on political areas, there would be no reason the courts couldn't work through the evidence for an answer. [15] To begin that task, the Court remanded the case back to the lower courts to conduct this analysis. [20] [21]

Sotomayor's concurrence

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in part in the Court's opinion and concurred in the judgment of the Court. She parted from the majority in the way she applied different factors to see whether the case was barred by the political question doctrine. [22] Sotomayor argued that if "the parties' textual, structural, and historical evidence is inapposite or wholly unilluminating, rendering judicial decision no more than guesswork, a case relying on the ordinary kinds of arguments offered to courts might well still present justiciability concerns". [23]

Alito's concurrence

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he agreed with the Court decision to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals but provided different grounds for doing so. He wrote that the issue before the Court was only a "narrow question" and thus it did not force the Court to enter a political realm. [24]

Breyer's dissent

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the decision of the Court, arguing that the case was barred by the political question doctrine. [25] Breyer argued that there were four sets of prudential considerations which, taken together in their totality, led to that conclusion. First, the issue arises in the field of foreign affairs. Second, the court may have to evaluate U.S. foreign policy. Third, no strong interest or right is at stake. Fourth, the conflict between Congress and the Executive can be resolved through nonjudicial means. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Andrew Wynn</span> American judge (born 1954)

James Andrew Wynn is an American jurist. He serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and formerly served on both the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the Act of State Doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the United States.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime, the Hobbs Act: an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the Travel Act: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which the United States had signed with the Republic of China, so that relations could instead be established with the People's Republic of China.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nathan Lewin</span> American attorney (born 1936)

Nathan Lewin is an American attorney who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..

Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the right of the executive branch to revoke a citizen's passport for reasons of national security and the foreign policy interests of the U.S. under the Passport Act of 1926.

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established that a United States citizen cannot have their citizenship taken away unless they have acted with an intent to give up that citizenship. The Supreme Court overturned portions of an act of Congress which had listed various actions and had said that the performance of any of these actions could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship. However, the Court ruled that a person's intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence — rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."

United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. It had been passed by Congress as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients. A 6–3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional and violated the free speech protections under the First Amendment. Despite reaffirming the opinion that was previously issued by the Ninth Circuit, it could not agree on a single rationale. Four justices concluded that a statement's falsity is not enough, by itself, to exclude speech from First Amendment protection. Another two justices concluded that while false statements were entitled to some protection, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was invalid because it could have achieved its objectives in less restrictive ways.

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974 is not clear enough to allow damages for suits for mental and emotional distress. The reasoning behind this is that the United States Congress, when authorizing suit against the government, must be clear in waiving the government's sovereign immunity.

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American Indian tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if Congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. The case was litigated over a period of 22 years, beginning in 1990, until it was decided in 2012.

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), follows up on the Supreme Court's 2011 case of the same name in which it had reversed the Third Circuit and concluded that both individuals and states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled against Bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded again, ruling that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 did not reach Bond's actions and she could not be charged under that federal law.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and, therefore, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a landmark US Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the US House of Representatives to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump, who had litigated against his personal accounting firm to prevent this disclosure, although the committees had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mazars was consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG.

References

  1. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 07-5347, Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8DC59BCC7D10E6D85257BB10051786D/$file/07-5347-1447974.pdf
  2. ↑ "Zivotofsky v. Kerry".
  3. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1425(S. Ct.2012).
  4. ↑ Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, 116 Stat. 1350, Section 214.
  5. ↑ 7 Foreign Affairs Manual § 1383.5-2, App. 108.
  6. ↑ § 1383, Exh. 1383.1, App. 127.
  7. ↑ "H.R.1646 - Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003". US Congress. September 30, 2002.
  8. ↑ Statement on Signing the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Public Papers of the Presidents, George W. Bush, Vol. 2, Sept. 30, 2002, p. 1698 (2005)
  9. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1425-1426(S. Ct.2012).
  10. ↑ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 307.
  11. ↑ Lawfare, Supreme Court Holds No Political Question in Zivotofsky, Remands for Decision on the Merits, March 26, 2012.
  12. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1426(S. Ct.2012).
  13. ↑ 444 F.3d 614, 619 (2006)
  14. ↑ 511 F.Supp.2d 97, 103 (2007)
  15. 1 2 Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 308.
  16. ↑ 563 U.S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 2897, 179 L.Ed.2d 1187 (2011)
  17. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1424(S. Ct.2012).
  18. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1428(S. Ct.2012).
  19. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1430(S. Ct.2012).
  20. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1431(S. Ct.2012).
  21. ↑ Harvard Law Review 2012, p. 311.
  22. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1432 , 1424(S. Ct.2012).
  23. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1435(S. Ct.2012).
  24. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1437(S. Ct.2012).
  25. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1438(S. Ct.2012).
  26. ↑ Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132S. Ct.1421 , 1438(S. Ct.2012).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.