Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:45:22.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ingrid Wuerth
Ingrid Wuerth*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, decided June 8, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (Court) held unconstitutional a federal statute that permitted U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to designate “Israel” as their place of birth on their passports, notwithstanding the secretary of state’s decision that such passports should designate “Jerusalem” as the place of birth. The opinion resolved a relatively narrow question of law (the constitutionality of an unusual statute), but the justices’ reasoning and language are of potentially broad significance and will provide fodder for many doctrinal debates in U.S. foreign relations law.

Keywords

Recognition of states”Reception Clause” of the U.S. Constitutionpresidential authoritystatus of Jerusaleminternational law as part of U.S. foreign relations law
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 636 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S.Ct. 2076 (2015).

2 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-228, §214(d), 116 Stat. 1350, 1366.

3 Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, No. 03-1921, 2004 WL 5835212 (D.D.C. Sept. 7, 2004).

4 Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 614, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

5 Whether a statutory right itself is enough to confer standing is an issue currently before the Supreme Court in another case, Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409, 413 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015).

6 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 1430 (2012).

7 Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 725 F.3d 197, 216–17 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

8 Brief for the Respondent, Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, No. 13-628, 2014 WL 4726506 at *5 (U.S. Sept. 22, 2014) (quoting Joint Appendix, Zivotofsky, 135 S.Ct. 2076 (No. 13-628), 2014 WL 3541505 at *52, *56).

9 Transcript of Oral Argument, at 3–4, Zivotofsky, 135 S.Ct. 2076 (No. 13-628), at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-628_fe9g.pdf, available in 2414 WL 5593534 at *3–*4.

10 Id. at 29–31, 2414 WL 5593534 at *29–*31.

11 See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)Google Scholar; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 679–80 (2006) (Thomas, J., dissenting)Google Scholar; Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 579 (2004) (Thomas, J., dissenting)Google Scholar.

12 See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635–38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (describing three categories of presidential conduct; in the third category the president acts contrary to the will of Congress, and to be upheld the asserted power must be both “exclusive” and “conclusive” on the issue).

13 Indeed, the contrary evidence has led the leading scholar on the topic to conclude that the recognition power is not exclusive. See Reinstein, Robert J., Is the President’s Recognition Power Exclusive?, 86 Temp. L. Rev. 1, 3–50 (2013)Google Scholar.

14 135 S.Ct. at 2112 n.9 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Thomas shared the majority’s assumption that the recognition power is the power to recognize as defined at international law because there is no evidence that the modern practice is different from the historical practice, nor is there evidence “that the original understanding of the recognition power was something other than the power to take part in that practice.” Id.

15 Id. at 2084 (majority opinion) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §203 cmt. a, at 84 (1986)).

16 Id. (citing and quoting 2 Whiteman Digest §1, at 1).

17 Id. at 2085–86 (quoting Brownlie, Ian, Principlesof Public International Law 93 (7th ed. 2008)Google Scholar, and citing 1 Moore Digest §27, at 73 (1906)).

18 Id. at 2118 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing Convention on Rights and Duties of States, Art. 6, Dec. 26, 1933, 49 Stat. 3097, 165 Lnts 19).

19 Id. (citing Whiteman, supra note 16, §3, at 48–49).

20 Id.

21 For a defense of using changing norms of international law in separation-of-powers cases as part of a functional analysis or to evaluate the past practice of the executive branch, see Wuerth, Ingrid Brunk, International Law and Constitutional Interpretation: The Commander in Chief Clause Reconsidered, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 61, 76–82 (2007)Google Scholar. The Court in Zivotofsky could have also used international law to interpret the historical interaction of Congress and the president over recognition. See Galbraith, Jean, International Law and the Domestic Separation of Powers, 99 Va. L. Rev. 987, 1009–20 (2013)Google Scholar.

22 See, e.g., 135 S.Ct. at 2118 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing the legal effects of recognition at international law and citing only twentieth-century sources in support).

23 See Ramsey, Michael D., Textualism and War Powers, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1543, 1587 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wuerth, Ingrid, The Captures Clause, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1683 (2009)Google Scholar.

24 See Cleveland, Sarah H., Our International Constitution, 31 Yale J. Int’l L. 1, 6–7 (2006)Google Scholar.

25 Sitaraman, Ganesh & Wuerth, Ingrid, The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1897 (2015)Google Scholar; see also Cohen, Harlan Grant, Formalism and Distrust: Foreign Affairs Law in the Roberts Court, 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 380 (2015)Google Scholar; Spiro, Peter J., Globalization and the (Foreign Affairs) Constitution, 63 Ohio St. L.J. 649 (2002)Google Scholar; Spiro, Peter J., Normalizing Foreign Relations Law After Zivotofsky II, 109 AJIL Unbound 22 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

27 United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937).

28 135 S.Ct. at 2089 (quoting Brief for the Respondent, supra note 8, at *18, *16).

29 See, e.g., Galbraith, Jean, Zivotofsky v. Kerry and the Balance of Power , AJIL Unbound (July 20, 2015, 12:00 PM EDT)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at http://www.asil.org/blogs/AJIL-unbound.

30 See Goldsmith, Jack, Why Zivotofsky Is a Significant Victory for the Executive Branch , Lawfare (June 8, 2015, 3:44 PM)Google Scholar, at http://www.lawfareblog.com/why-zivotofsky-significant-victory-executive-branch.

31 See NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014).

32 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964).