Page:Zivotofsky v. Kerry.pdf/31

Rh

Thus, the Secretary will not list “Israel” in a passport as the country containing Jerusalem.

The flaw in § 214(d) is further underscored by the undoubted fact that the purpose of the statute was to infringe on the recognition powera power the Court now holds is the sole prerogative of the President. The statute is titled “United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.” § 214, 116 Stat. 1365. The House Conference Report proclaimed that § 214 “contains four provisions related to the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107–671, p. 123 (2002). And, indeed, observers interpreted § 214 as altering United States policy regarding Jerusalemwhich led to protests across the region. See supra, at 8. From the face of § 214, from the legislative history, and from its reception, it is clear that Congress wanted to express its displeasure with the President's policy by, among other things, commanding the Executive to contradict his own, earlier stated position on Jerusalem. This Congress may not do.

It is true, as Zivotofsky notes, that Congress has substantial authority over passports. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280 (1981); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1 (1965); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116 (1958). The Court does not question the power of Congress to enact passport legislation of wide scope. In Kent v. Dulles, for example, the Court held that if a person's " `liberty' ” to travel “is to be regulated” through a passport, “it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress.” Id., at 129. Later cases, such as Zemel v. Rusk and Haig v. Agee, also proceeded on the assumption that Congress must authorize the grounds on which passports may be approved or denied. See Zemel, supra, at 7–13; Haig, supra, at 289–306. This is consistent with the extensive lawmaking power the Constitution vests in Congress over the Nation's foreign affairs.

The problem with § 214(d), however, lies in how Congress exercised its authority over passports. It was an improper act for Congress to “aggrandiz[e] its power at the expense of