Opinion ID: 187427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Issue Before the Court

Text: The Secretary does not doubt that Zivotofsky has standing to raise a viable cause of action under § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act. Nor does the Secretary doubt that Zivotofsky properly invoked the District Court's statutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346(a)(2), and 1361. Therefore, the issue before this court is: Whether § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act, which affords Zivotofsky a statutory right to have Israel listed as the place of birth on his passport, is a constitutionally valid enactment. Put another way, the court must decide: Whether, in enacting § 214(d), a provision purporting to address United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, Congress impermissibly intruded on the President's exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. These questions involve commonplace issues of statutory and constitutional interpretation, and they are plainly matters for the court to decide. And in answering these questions, this court has no occasion to address a political question that is reserved to the exclusive authority of one of the political branches of government.