By Jeremy Morris, Associate Editor,USDR.
The court ruled that the responsibility of issuing passports is shared by the legislative and executive branches of government, and that a ten-year-old law “infringed” on the prerogative of the executive branch. The law, Section 214(d) of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, was ruled unconstitutional by the appellatecourt.
Second 214(d) provides that when a U.S. citizen is born in Jerusalem, “the Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birthas Israel.”
“The appellate court’s ruling that section 214(d) is unconstitutional is unfortunate, as it undermines the existing balance of power between the Congress and Executive branch in foreign policy,” said AJC General Counsel MarcStern.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision last year, had remanded the case of Zivotofsky v. the Secretary of State to the Court of Appeals to decide whether the President must follow a congressional directive to list “Israel” in the passports of Americans borninJerusalem.
“An American passport, not the current and future status of Jerusalem, is the core issue in the Zivotofsky case,” said Stern. “No one should be surprised if the Zivotofsky family petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their caseagain.”
An AJC amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court last August was prepared by Gregory E. Ostfeld of the law firm Greenberg Traurig,LLP.