This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Congress can require U.S. passports for people born in Jerusalem to list “Jerusalem, Israel” as the place of birth, or whether that authority is exclusively held by the President.
Both sides argue that the issue raises separation‑of‑powers questions and whether the dispute is a justiciable political question.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, petitioners argue that Congress must have either express or implicit authority to require the State Department to list “Jerusalem, Israel” on passports, citing prior passport cases such as Zemel v. Rusk and Kent v. Dulles.
According to Respondent, respondents contend that the Constitution gives the President exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns, and that this exclusive recognition power precludes Congress or the courts from dictating passport language.
The central legal question is whether Congress has the authority to require the designation “Jerusalem, Israel” on passports, or whether that authority is exclusively vested in the President’s recognition power.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, petitioners maintain that Congress must have authority—express or implicit—to require the State Department to list “Jerusalem, Israel” on passports, as required by prior Supreme Court precedent on passport authority.
According to Petitioner, they argue that the issue is not a non‑justiciable political question because the Court has previously decided similar foreign‑policy‑related disputes, citing Baker v. Carr.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, respondents assert that the Constitution grants the President exclusive recognition power, which includes deciding how a place of birth is listed on passports, and that neither Congress nor the courts may override that judgment.
According to General Verrilli, the government further argues that the recognition power is exclusive because of timing, expertise, and the need for secrecy.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked, “What power is Congress exercising here?”
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced, “We’ll hear argument first this morning in Case 10‑699, Zivotofsky v. Clinton.”
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned, “Congress is supreme, then?”
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the outcome would differ if Congress required “Jerusalem, Israel” on passports.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia noted that a personal identification choice can have significant foreign‑policy implications.
Justice Ginsburg pointed out that the D.C. Circuit had decided a related question and asked whether the issue is a political question.
Justice Breyer asked whether “exclusive power” means the President can act without congressional authority.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned how labeling the issue a political question advances the analysis.
Justice Alito asked what the precise question is that must be identified to decide if it is a political question.
Justice Kagan asked whether the argument would be the same if the constitutional provision were not present.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced, “The case is submitted.”
- [1] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 11
- [4] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 12
- [5] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 21
- [6] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 23
- [7] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 26
- [8] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 31
- [9] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 32
- [10] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 42
- [11] 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdf, p. 56
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Justice Scalia, the dispute could affect U.S. foreign‑policy signaling because a passport designation influences how other nations view U.S. recognition of Jerusalem’s status.
The case also raises important constitutional questions about the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches in matters of foreign recognition.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 13955ca18cb68644c334-r1-23b8a204b8836873.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.