Brief Amici Curiae Of Anti-Defamation League, Association Of Proud American Citizens Born In Jerusalem, Israel, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, B'nai B'rith International, Hadassah, Jewish Council For Public Affairs, National Council Of Jewish Women, National Council Of Young Israel, Rabbinical Assembly, Union For Reform Judaism, Union Of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Of America, And The Women's League For Conservative Judaism In Support Of Petitioner

No. 10-699 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— MENACHEM BINYAMIN ZIVOTOFSKY, by his parents and guardians, ARI Z. and NAOMI SIEGMAN ZIVOTOFSKY, Petitioner, v. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, Respondent. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ———— BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, ASSOCIATION OF PROUD AMERICAN CITIZENS BORN IN JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL, HADASSAH, JEWISH COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL, RABBINICAL ASSEMBLY, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM, UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA, AND THE WOMEN’S LEAGUE FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ———— STEVEN M. FREEMAN STEVEN C. SHEINBERG ROBERT O. TRESTAN DEBORAH BENSINGER ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 (212) 885-7700 MICHAEL S. GARDENER Counsel of Record JEFFREY S. ROBBINS ARI N. STERN MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 (617) 542-6000 MSGardener@mintz.com Attorneys for Amici Curiae (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 6 ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE STATUTE AT ISSUE HERE DOES NOT IMPLICATE ANY FOREIGN POLICY POWER COMMITTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE EXECUTIVE, BUT RATHER MERELY ACCORDS CITI-ZENS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS, THIS ACTION IS JUSTICIABLE, THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND DISMISSAL WAS IMPROPER .............. 8 A. Congress Does Have The Power To Legislate Regarding The Issuance of Passports ................................................... 10 B. Congress’ Authority To Afford Citizens The Right To Have Their Place Of Birth Recorded As “Israel” Should Not Be Invalidated, As Such Rights Do Not Interfere With Any Power The Execu-tive May Be Argued To Have To Recognize Foreign Governments .............. 12 C. Respondent Already Permits Citizens To Include Information In Their Passports Directly Contrary To U.S. Policy Of Recognition Or Non-Recognition Of Foreign Governments ............................... 15ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page D. Congress Acted Within Its Constitu-tional Authority When It Enacted Section 214(d) ............................................ 18 E. This Case Can, And Should, Be Decided On Non-Political Grounds ........................ 23 CONCLUSION .................................................... 24 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998) ............................................. 23 Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 84 S. Ct. 1659, 12 L. Ed. 2d 992 (1964) ............................................. 10 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74 S. Ct. 693, 98 L. Ed. 884 (1954) .................................................. 20 Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955) ................................................ 20 City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985) ............................. 20 Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 125 S. Ct. 716, 160 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2005) ............................................. 23 Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S. Ct. 285, 76 L. Ed. 598 (1932) ......................................................... 23 Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 101 S. Ct. 2766, 69 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981) ............................................. 13 Henderson v. Mayor of City of New York, 92 U.S. 259, 23 L. Ed. 543 (1875) ............. 10 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958) ................................................ 11 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 132 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1995) ........................... 20 Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 97 S. Ct. 2777, 53 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1977) ............................. 18 Spector Motor Serv. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 65 S. Ct. 152, 89 L. Ed. 101 (1944) .................................. 23 Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S. Ct. 783, 95 L. Ed. 1019 (1951) ................................ 19, 20 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974) ........................... 19 Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 692, L. Ed. 276 (1835) ..... 13 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001) ........................... 23 Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965) ............................. 10 Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 571 F.3d 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 2897 (U.S. 2011) ....... passim CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. Art. I .......................................... 6, 10 U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3........................... 10 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page U.S. Const. Art. II, § 3 ................................. 7, 9, 12 U.S. Const. Amend. V ................................... 20 STATUTES/REGULATIONS 22 U.S.C. § 211a ........................................... 10, 11 22 U.S.C. § 212 ............................................. 11 22 U.S.C. § 213 ............................................. 11 22 U.S.C. § 214 ............................................. 11 22 U.S.C. § 214a ........................................... 11 22 U.S.C. § 217a ........................................... 11 22 U.S.C. § 218 ............................................. 11 Exec. Order 11295, 3 C.F.R. 570 (1966-1970), 31 Fed. Reg. 10603 ......................... 11 Foreign Relations Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 132, 108 Stat. 395 (1994) as amended by Pub. L. 103-415, §1(r), 108 Stat. 4302 (1994), 22 U.S.C.A. §2705 .................................................... 11, 15, 20 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-228, § 214(d), 116 Stat. 1366 (2002), 22 U.S.C. § 2651(d) (2006) ........................................ passim OTHER AUTHORITIES 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D .............................. 16, 17 7 FAM 1310(f) Appendix D .......................... 17 7 FAM 1310(g) Appendix D .......................... 13, 21 7 FAM 1310(g)(4) Appendix D ..................... 14 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page 7 FAM 1311(b) .............................................. 12 7 FAM 1311(d)(1) .......................................... 12 7 FAM 1311(f)(2) .......................................... 13 7 FAM 1311(g) .............................................. 12 7 FAM 1318(a) .............................................. 11 7 FAM 1340d(6)(a) Appendix D ................... 16 7 FAM 1340d(6)(f) Appendix D .................... 15, 20 7 FAM 1380(a) Appendix D ..................... 16, 17, 21 7 FAM 1445.2c .............................................. 17 Jerusalem-USA blog available at http://jerusalem-usa.blogspot.com............ 21 National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, GeoNames Search Reports, available at http://geonames.nga.mil.ggmaviewer/..... 21 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), the Associa-tion of Proud American Citizens Born in Jerusalem, Israel (the “Association”), and other prominent Jewish organizations respectfully submit this brief as Amici Curiae in support of the Petitioner.1Founded in 1913 to “fight the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treat-ment to all,” ADL is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism, racism, and all forms of bigo-try through programs and services that counteract hatred and prejudice. As part of its dual commitment to human rights and the security of the Jewish people, ADL is an ad-vocate for the democratic state of Israel, a key Ameri-can ally and the homeland of the Jewish people. Indeed, ADL has long supported the position that Jerusalem is and should remain the undivided and eternal capital of Israel. It is these commitments that animate ADL’s involvement in this case. More-over, ADL advocated for passage of the law at issue in this case in order to support the right of an indi-vidual to identify the country where he or she was born, a right that is granted to the vast majority of Americans, but not to those born in Jerusalem. 1 ADL and the Association gave at least ten days’ notice of intention to file this brief to counsel of record for the parties. By correspondence with undersigned counsel, the parties have con-sented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no such counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission. No person other than Amici or counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission. 2 The Association of Proud American Citizens Born in Jerusalem, Israel is an ad hoc, web-based organi-zation, administered by both the International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation and the National Council of Young Israel, which consists of Jerusalem-born American citizens who wish to self-identify as U.S. citizens born in Israel. To this end, the Association emphatically supports Menachem Binyamin Zivo-tofsky’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”) was founded in 1954. AIPAC is registered as a domestic lobby and supported financially by private donations. The organization receives no financial assistance from Israel or any foreign group. AIPAC is not a political action committee and it does not rate, endorse, or contribute to candidates. AIPAC is the only American organization whose principal mission is to lobby the United States government on issues affecting the U.S.-Israel relationship. To this end, AIPAC’s over 100,000...