 |
|
|
|
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
| CASES OF INTEREST | |
| click here to go back to the Cases of Interest | |
| IMMIGRATION: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION | |
| Issue: U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3/ President's power to recognize foreign governments. Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, No. 07-5347 (D.C.Cir. 07/10/2009) | |
Issue: U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3/ President's power to recognize foreign governments. Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, No. 07-5347 (D.C.Cir. 07/10/2009) |
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit
|
|
| Q. Can the District Court direct the Secretary of State, in contravention of US policy, to record Israel as the birthplace of a US citizen born in Jerusalem?
|
|
| A. No.In October 2002, petitioner, a US citizen, sought to have his U.S. passport and a Consular Report of Birth record the place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel." U.S. diplomatic officials declined on the basis of longstanding State Department policy.
Petitioner moved the District Court on the basis of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2651 Section 214, urging the President to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem. The US Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The judiciary has no authority to order the Executive Branch to change the nation's foreign policy. The President's exercise of the recognition power granted solely to him by the Constitution cannot be reviewed by the courts. By asking the judiciary to order the State Department to mark official government documents in a manner that would directly contravene the President's policy, petitioner invites the courts to call into question the President's exercise of the recognition back to the top |
|