Zivotofsky Litigation

Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, 03-cv-01921 (D.D.C., filed 6 Sep 2003). This lawsuit concerned the issue of listing “Israel” as the place of birth on U.S. passports. Parents of a boy, a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem, asked the U.S. State Department to record on his passport “Israel” as his place of birth,” in accordance with Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003. The State Department refused and instead issued  a passport that listed only “Jerusalem” as his place of birth. His parents sued on his behalf, seeking enforcement of Section 214(d). The district court dismissed on the grounds that it presented a non-justiciable political question. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the district court held that Section 214(d) “impermissibly intereferes” with the President’s exclusive power to recognize foreign states. The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The outcome was rendered moot in October 2020, when the U.S. State Department revised its guidance to allow U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to have either “Israel” or “Jerusalem” (but not both!) listed as the place of birth on their passports.

Documentation relevant to this litigation:

Docket – District Court, D.C., 03-cv-01921
Docket – D.C Circuit Court of Appeals, 04-5395
Docket – D.C Circuit Court of Appeals, 07-5347
Docket – U.S. Supreme Court, 10-699
Docket – U.S. Supreme Court, 13-628

Litigation Chronology

2003
16 Sep 2003

Plaintiff files Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

2004
7 Sep 2004

The District Court issues a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the case for lack of standing and presentation of a nonjusticiable political question.

2006
7 Jun 2006

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses and remands to the District Court, ruling that Zivotofsky did have standing, and that the issue of justiciability should be subject to further factual development.

2007
9 Sep 2007

On remand, the District Court in a Memorandum Opinion, again dismisses the case, concluding that it presents a political question — the political status of Jerusalem — and therefore is not justiciable.

2009
10 Jul 2009

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the District Court’s decision.

2010
29 Jun 2010

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denies Zivotofsky’s petition for rehearing en banc, by a split court with a dissenting statement by Senior Circuit Judge Edwards.

2012
26 Mar 2012

U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, reverses and remands the case to the lower courts, holding that the political question doctrine does not bar judicial review of Zivotofsky’s claim.

2013
23 Jul 2013

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals again affirms the District Court’s 2007 decision, this time on a different ground, holding that the statute in question impermissibly intrudes on the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to decide whether and on what terms to recognize foreign nations.

2015
8 Jun 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, affirms the Circuit Court’s holding that the President has exclusive power to grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign.

Further Resources:

  From Before the Final Supreme Court Decision

  After the Final Supreme Court Decision