Statements (69)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
The decision was a landmark ruling.
The decision was controversial. The ruling was a landmark decision. The ruling has implications for future passport policies. The ruling was seen as a victory for executive power. The ruling has far-reaching implications. The ruling was a significant legal victory. Influences_how_the_U.S._handles_passport_policies. The_ruling_affects_U.S._foreign_policy. |
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Constitutional law case.
13-628. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Impacts_the_interpretation_of_the_Constitution_regarding_foreign_affairs.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D.C.
The decision was 6-3. |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 8, 2015 |
| gptkbp:filedIn |
November 12, 2014
|
| gptkbp:hasAuthorityOver |
The_Supreme_Court's_authority_is_paramount.
The_Supreme_Court_has_the_final_say. |
| gptkbp:historicalContext |
Related_to_U.S._recognition_of_Jerusalem.
|
| gptkbp:historicalEvent |
The case has a complex legal history.
The case was appealed from a lower court. |
| gptkbp:homeGround |
The case involved a dispute over citizenship rights.
Originated from a dispute over passport issuance. The case arose from a legal challenge. |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Zivotofsky v. Kerry
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Affects_how_U.S._citizens_can_list_their_place_of_birth_on_passports.
|
| gptkbp:involves |
gptkb:John_Kerry
gptkb:Menachem_Zivotofsky |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy The case was subject to judicial review. The ruling affirmed the executive branch's authority. The_Supreme_Court's_review_was_critical. The_Supreme_Court_reviewed_the_case. |
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
The case arose from a conflict between state and federal law.
The arguments centered on constitutional interpretation. Involves principles of separation of powers. Sets a precedent for future cases involving passport regulations. The case is rooted in constitutional law. The case set important legal precedents. Involved arguments about the scope of presidential power. The arguments were based on constitutional principles. The decision reinforced executive authority in foreign affairs. Highlights_the_tension_between_Congress_and_the_President. Represented_by_the_American_Center_for_Law_and_Justice. Involves_the_Foreign_Relations_Authorization_Act. U.S._passport_designation The_Court_ruled_that_the_executive_branch_has_the_authority_to_determine_foreign_policy. The_ruling_clarified_the_role_of_Congress_in_foreign_policy. |
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
The case is a key example of judicial review.
The case is frequently referenced in legal discussions. Involved a challenge to a federal law. The case involved significant legal questions. The case is significant in constitutional law. The case was closely watched by legal experts. The case is often cited in discussions of executive power. The_case_was_pivotal_in_U.S._legal_history. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
The_Court_ruled_in_favor_of_the_executive_branch.
|
| gptkbp:politicalAffiliation |
gptkb:Menachem_Zivotofsky
U.S._Department_of_State. |
| gptkbp:politicalParty |
The majority opinion held that the law conflicted with the executive branch's authority.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Influences future cases regarding executive authority.
|
| gptkbp:publicAccess |
The case received significant media attention.
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.
Zivotofsky_v._Clinton. |
| gptkbp:relatedTo |
U.S._foreign_relations_law.
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Addresses_the_separation_of_powers_in_U.S._foreign_policy.
|