Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T02:19:10.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

D.C. Circuit Rules Statute Authorizing “Israel” as Place of Birth on Passports of Citizens Born in Jerusalem Is Unconstitutional

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 907 - 909
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

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 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1350 (2002).

2 Section 214(d) provides:”Record of Place of Birth As Israel for Passport Purposes.— For 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.”

3 Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 725 F.3d 197, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

4 Statement on Signing the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, 38 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1658–60 (Sept. 30, 2002), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2002-10-07/pdf/WCPD-2002-10-07-Pg1658-2.pdf.

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

6 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S.Ct. 1421 (2012); see Crook, John R., Contemporary Practice of the United States, 105 AJIL 775, 814 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 106 AJIL 643, 644 (2012).

7 Zivotofsky, 725 F.3d at 197.

8 Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith W. Rogers, and David S. Tatel comprised the panel.

9 See Ann E. Marimow, Congress Overstepped, Court Rules, Wash. Post, July 24, 2013, at A3.

10 Zivotofsky, 725 F.3d at 205.

11 Id. at 206.

12 Id. at 207–10.

13 Id. at 211–14.

14 Id. (discussing, inter alia, Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 38 U.S. 415, 420 (1839), United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330 (1937), Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 138 (1938), United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942), Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 213 (1962), and Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 (1964)).

15 Zivotofsky, 725 F.3d at 214.

16 Id. at 216.

17 Id. at 217.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 218 –19.

20 Id. at 219.

21 Id. at 219 –20.

22 Id. at 225 (Tatel, J., concurring).