The State Department had rejected that request under a longstanding policy that took no stance on the legal status of Jerusalem.

The Court found that resolving the Zivotofskys' dispute did not require such analysis, because the constitutionality of the challenged law could be distinguished from the accuracy of the resulting passport listings.

"[4] This Congress-passed policy directly contradicted the State Department's guidelines which ordered the naming of the city alone when a nation's borders were in dispute.

[9] After their request to the State Department for his passport place-of-birth to say "Israel" was denied, his parents filed suit.

Circuit Court affirmed, holding that taking any position "on the status of Jerusalem" was not appropriate for judicial review.

"[18] Judging the constitutionality of a law in this context would not "turn on standards that defy judicial application" because reviewing the "textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties" is "what courts do.

[22] Sotomayor argued that if "the parties' textual, structural, and historical evidence is inapposite or wholly unilluminating, rendering judicial decision no more than guesswork, a case relying on the ordinary kinds of arguments offered to courts might well still present justiciability concerns".

[23] Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, in which he agreed with the Court decision to reverse the D.C.

[24] Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the decision of the Court, arguing that the case was barred by the political question doctrine.