Page:Zivotofsky v. Kerry.pdf/32

32

another branch” by requiring the President to contradict an earlier recognition determination in an official document issued by the Executive Branch. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 878 (1991). To allow Congress to control the President's communication in the context of a formal recognition determination is to allow Congress to exercise that exclusive power itself. As a result, the statute is unconstitutional.

In holding § 214(d) invalid the Court does not question the substantial powers of Congress over foreign affairs in general or passports in particular. This case is confined solely to the exclusive power of the President to control recognition determinations, including formal statements by the Executive Branch acknowledging the legitimacy of a state or government and its territorial bounds. Congress cannot command the President to contradict an earlier recognition determination in the issuance of passports.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is Affirmed.

, concurring.

I continue to believe that this case presents a political question inappropriate for judicial resolution. See Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 212 (2012) (, dissenting). But because precedent precludes resolving this case on political question grounds, see id., at 191 (majority opinion), I join the Court's opinion.

 , concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Our Constitution allocates the powers of the Federal Government over foreign affairs in two ways. First, it expressly identifes certain foreign affairs powers and vests them in particular branches, either individually or jointly. 