I have a paper coming out in a few weeks on Zivotofsky II but want to raise an issue in the case here that I excluded from that paper. The issue is the Vesting Clause as a residual source of presidential power.
Latest in Zivotofsky v. Kerry
I have a short commentary on Zivotofsky v. Kerry (forthcoming in the American Journal of International Law), which is now available here. What follows in this post is an edited version of the abstract.
Here is the summer 2015 supplement for my casebook (with Curtis Bradley), Foreign Relations Law: Cases and Materials (5th ed. 2014). This supplement contains, among other things, an excerpt of (and Notes and Questions on) Zivotofsky v.
Zivotofsky was a case about the recognition power, but it was also the first in quite a while to offer any insight into the Justices’ views on the nature of the President’s power to communicate with foreign sovereigns. Given precedents like Curtiss-Wright, which famously quoted John Marshall for the proposition that the President is the “‘sole organ of the nation in its external relations,’” commentators have long assumed that diplomatic communication is an exclusively executive domain.
On this week’s Lawfare Podcast, Lawfare Founding Editor Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman—Georgetown law professor, Just Security blogger, and former Justice Department official—sat down to discuss the Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling in Zivotofsky v.
The Supreme Court granted cert. today in Zivotofsky v. Clinton. In that case the D.C. Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, held that Section 214(d) of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which requires the Secretary of State to record “Israel” as the place of birth on a U.S.