SCOTUS sides with WH on Jerusalem passport issue

[Velar Fricative]

I had not heard of this case (or this issue) before reading this decision.

www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/us/politics/supreme-court-backs-white-house-on-jerusalem-passport-dispute.html

WASHINGTON — In an important separation-of-powers decision, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.



The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissenting.



Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for five justices, said the question of the status of Jerusalem is “a delicate subject.” But he said the Constitution conferred exclusive authority on the president to recognize foreign governments.



In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts said the majority had taken a bold step. “Today’s decision is a first,” he wrote. “Never before has this court accepted a president’s direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.”



The case concerned a 2002 law that instructed the State Department to “record the place of birth as Israel” in the passports of American children born in Jerusalem if their parents asked. It was brought by the parents of Menachem B. Zivotofsky, who was born not long after Congress enacted the law. Under the State Department’s policies, their son’s passport says that he was born in Jerusalem; they sought to have it say Israel.



President George W. Bush signed the law, part of an appropriations bill, but said he would not follow the Jerusalem provision because it “impermissibly interferes with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs.”



The Obama administration also objects to the provision and has refused to follow it. In its Supreme Court briefs, it told the justices that the status of Jerusalem should be resolved by negotiations between Arabs and Israelis.



The case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, No. 13-628, thus presented an important test of the dueling roles of Congress and the president in the conduct of foreign affairs.



The case was before the justices once before, on a preliminary issue. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the case did not involve a “political question” beyond the federal courts’ power to decide and returned the case to an appeals court.



In 2013, the appeals court ruled for the executive branch, saying the passport requirement impermissibly intruded on what it said was the president’s exclusive power to recognize foreign governments.

[2curlydogs]

Thomas sided with the majority?

[Velar Fricative]

Jun 8, 2015 10:48:35 GMT -5 2curlydogs said:

Thomas sided with the majority?

Yes, but it was a partial concurrence. I found this on the Politico news story:

"In his partial concurrence, Thomas agreed that the executive branch has the exclusive right to decide what nation appears on Zivotofsky’s passport, though he dissented in part by saying that Congress should be allowed to decide what nation can appear on Zivotofsky’s birth certificate in accordance with its constitutional authority over naturalization laws."

[ijack]

Does anyone want to dumb it down for me and explain this? What are the implications of each side?

[Velar Fricative]

Jun 8, 2015 11:06:49 GMT -5 ijack said:

Does anyone want to dumb it down for me and explain this? What are the implications of each side?

I will try.

Basically, the crux of the issue is not whether we love or hate Israel (though I'm sure some politicians will spin things this way), but whether the POTUS has the right to recognize (via the State Department) another country or not. As per the Constitution, the POTUS does have this right, and the courts affirmed that. However, in 2002, Congress passed a wider law instructing the State Department to have "Israel" printed on the passports of Jerusalem-born Americans, but neither GWB nor Obama followed this particular provision of the law because of their constitutional authority to recognize (or not) foreign governments. An American family with a Jerusalem-born child sued, and here we are.

But Thomas' view is interesting and I am curious to hear from our resident legal experts if there is indeed a conflict here.

[ttt]

Good. The Israel issue aside, this is clearly Congress overstepping its constitutional bounds.

[ijack]

Jun 8, 2015 11:13:45 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jun 8, 2015 11:06:49 GMT -5 ijack said:

Does anyone want to dumb it down for me and explain this? What are the implications of each side?

I will try.

Basically, the crux of the issue is not whether we love or hate Israel (though I'm sure some politicians will spin things this way), but whether the POTUS has the right to recognize (via the State Department) another country or not. As per the Constitution, the POTUS does have this right, and the courts affirmed that. However, in 2002, Congress passed a wider law instructing the State Department to have "Israel" printed on the passports of Jerusalem-born Americans, but neither GWB nor Obama followed this particular provision of the law because of their constitutional authority to recognize (or not) foreign governments. An American family with a Jerusalem-born child sued, and here we are.

But Thomas' view is interesting and I am curious to hear from our resident legal experts if there is indeed a conflict here.

Thanks. I couldn't figure out if it was more about Israel or POTUS's authority.

[Deleted]

Dumb question.
What does it say on the passport of not Israel? Just Jerusalem?

[StrawberryBlondie]

ESF what did you predict on this one? I can't find the predictions thread.

[Velar Fricative]

Jun 8, 2015 14:43:09 GMT -5 @hannymaren said:

Dumb question.
What does it say on the passport of not Israel? Just Jerusalem?

Yes, just Jerusalem.

[ESF]

Jun 8, 2015 15:02:40 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

ESF what did you predict on this one? I can't find the predictions thread.

I thought they were going to side with Congress, based on what I read about the oral arguments.  Apparently Scalia was outspoken enough to drown out the 6 who agreed with the president.

My predictions are terrible this year!   

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 8, 2015 15:11:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jun 8, 2015 15:02:40 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

ESF what did you predict on this one? I can't find the predictions thread.

I thought they were going to side with Congress, based on what I read about the oral arguments.  Apparently Scalia was outspoken enough to drown out the 6 who agreed with the president.

My predictions are terrible this year!   

You should listen to my DH. He's been pretty spot on this year.

ETA: he's never right.

[ESF]

Jun 8, 2015 15:14:03 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jun 8, 2015 15:11:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

I thought they were going to side with Congress, based on what I read about the oral arguments.  Apparently Scalia was outspoken enough to drown out the 6 who agreed with the president.

My predictions are terrible this year!   

You should listen to my DH. He's been pretty spot on this year.

What's his prediction on the ACA case?

[StrawberryBlondie]

I don't remember. I'll ask him tonight.

[ttt]

Jun 8, 2015 15:11:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jun 8, 2015 15:02:40 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

ESF what did you predict on this one? I can't find the predictions thread.

I thought they were going to side with Congress, based on what I read about the oral arguments.  Apparently Scalia was outspoken enough to drown out the 6 who agreed with the president.

My predictions are terrible this year!   

Thank God!!!

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 8, 2015 15:14:43 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jun 8, 2015 15:14:03 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

You should listen to my DH. He's been pretty spot on this year.

What's his prediction on the ACA case?

Ok, i asked. He thought they'd punt and say its a political issue, not one for the courts.