So, Now Can Menachem Zivotofsky Get His Passport Reissued to Say “Israel”?

So, Now Can Menachem Zivotofsky Get His Passport Reissued to Say “Israel”?

Legal Sidebari

So, Now Can Menachem Zivotofsky Get His
Passport Reissued to Say “Israel”?
Updated March 1, 2018
Does the President’s proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel have any effect on what
goes on the passports of U.S. citizens born there? It appears that the executive branch could change its
policy to permit Jerusalem-born passport applicants to request to have their place of birth listed as Israel
instead of Jerusalem. But if it does not, could Congress renew its efforts to permit U.S. citizens born in
Jerusalem to identify their birth place as Israel on official documents, even though the Supreme Court
earlier rebuffed these efforts? (For detailed background, see CRS Report R43773, Zivotofsky v. Kerry:
The Jerusalem Passport Case and Its Potential Implications for Congress’s Foreign Affairs Powers, by
Jennifer K. Elsea.)
Menachem Zivotofsky, a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem in 2002, was sufficiently interested in having his
passport list Israel as his birth place that he asked the Supreme Court – twice, and was denied– for
assistance in compelling the State Department to comply with a law that said it had to list Israel upon
request. Notwithstanding that law (section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2003), State Department policy under President George W. Bush continued to follow the longstanding
practice of directing consular officers to list “Jerusalem” as the place of birth in such cases on consular
reports of birth and passports. The purpose of this policy was to avoid the perception of contradicting the
President’s recognition policy that conspicuously refrained from acknowledging any foreign
government’s sovereign control over Jerusalem. In addition, the city’s status is a longstanding point of
contention in the enduring dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. For more information, see CRS
Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.
As noted, the Supreme Court denied relief. The 6-3 majority in Zivotofsky v. Kerry determined that
section 214(d) impinged on the President’s exclusive authority to recognize foreign governments’ control
over territory by “alter[ing] the President’s statements on matters of recognition or forc[ing] him to
contradict them,” which effectively meant that Congress “would [be] exercis[ing] the recognition power.”
But if filling the birthplace line on the passport of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem with Israel no longer
constitutes a contradiction that impedes the nation’s ability to “speak with one voice,” would a renewed
requirement to do so also be unconstitutional?
It seems counterintuitive that a newly passed provision with language identical to section 214(d) would be
constitutional after the Supreme Court rejected it, but there is also language in the Court’s opinion
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10088
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
suggesting this could well be the case. Section 214(d) was modeled after an earlier provision directing the
State Department to list Taiwan as the place of birth of Americans born there, rather than listing China, to
reflect U.S. adoption of the One China Policy. The Supreme Court did not appear to object to that
provision because it was in keeping with U.S. policy towards Taiwan and did not contradict an earlier
presidential pronouncement regarding the recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
Moreover, the Zivotofsky majority did not object to a number of other statutes that Zivotofsky proffered to
demonstrate that Congress sometimes plays a role in recognition actions. That “some Presidents have
chosen to cooperate with Congress” did not, according to the Court, establish that “Congress itself has
exercised the recognition power.” Yet the Court did not suggest that those statutes were unconstitutional.
Accordingly, a statute that does not contradict an earlier made recognition decision and does not itself
constitute an exercise of the recognition power, but merely supports a presidential recognition decision,
may pass constitutional muster.
It is not clear how far the President’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital reaches. The
President’s proclamation also stated that “[t]he specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are
subject to final status negotiations between the parties. The United States is not taking a position on
boundaries or borders.” Consequently, it may be premature to presume that the President will change the
passport policy, and a renewed statute to require it might still be deemed to impinge on executive
authority. Shortly after the President’s proclamation on Jerusalem, an Administration official stated that
“[t]here has been no change in our policy with respect to consular practice or passport issuance at this
time.”
Even if the passport policy regarding Jerusalem is altered so that U.S. citizens born there may
request Israel listed as their place of birth, it is likely that the change will be prospective only.
The relevant State Department Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) indicates that it is based on
recognition policy as of the date of birth. It distinguishes how to fill the place of birth block on
passports and other official documents, so that, for example, persons born before May 14, 1948
in the West Bank or Gaza may have “Palestine” listed as the place of birth (if requested).
Consequently, Menachem Zivotofsky, should he ask to have his passport reissued to list “Israel”
as his place of birth, would probably be unsuccessful.

Author Information

Jennifer K. Elsea

Legislative Attorney

Congressional Research Service
3

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB10088 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED