This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/08/supreme-court-jerusalem-israel-passport

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme court rules boy born in Jerusalem can't have Israel on passport US supreme court rules boy born in Jerusalem can't have Israel on passport
(35 minutes later)
The US supreme court ruled on Monday that a boy born in Jerusalem could not have Israel listed on his passport, affirming the president’s exclusive power to recognise foreign countries and finding a 2002 statute unconstitutional. The US supreme court ruled on Monday that a boy born in Jerusalem could not have Israel listed on his passport in contradiction to the president’s foreign policy, affirming the president’s exclusive power to recognize sovereign states and finding a 2002 statute unconstitutional.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 case, which ruled in favor of the US government and against the family of Menachem Zivotofsky, who sued to get the boy’s birthplace listed as “Jerusalem, Israel”.Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 case, which ruled in favor of the US government and against the family of Menachem Zivotofsky, who sued to get the boy’s birthplace listed as “Jerusalem, Israel”.
The US has declined to recognize the sovereignty of any country over Jerusalem since 1948. In 2002, Congress passed a law that instructed the State Department, which handles passports, to list Israel should a US citizen request it.The US has declined to recognize the sovereignty of any country over Jerusalem since 1948. In 2002, Congress passed a law that instructed the State Department, which handles passports, to list Israel should a US citizen request it.
“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,” Kennedy wrote. “As a result, the statute is unconstitutional.”“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,” Kennedy wrote. “As a result, the statute is unconstitutional.”
Chief justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito dissented. Clarence Thomas concurred only with regard to passports as a presidential power, and dissented on the remainder of the decision.Chief justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito dissented. Clarence Thomas concurred only with regard to passports as a presidential power, and dissented on the remainder of the decision.
Citing historical precedents – colonial revolts in South America, revolutions in Texas and Russia – and the president’s many powers in foreign policy, including naming ambassadors and brokering treaties, Kennedy wrote that the president held exclusive power to recognize sovereignty, including through passports.Citing historical precedents – colonial revolts in South America, revolutions in Texas and Russia – and the president’s many powers in foreign policy, including naming ambassadors and brokering treaties, Kennedy wrote that the president held exclusive power to recognize sovereignty, including through passports.
“Congress, by contrast, has no constitutional power that would enable it to initiate diplomatic relations with a foreign nation,” he wrote, adding: “Put simply, the nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not.”“Congress, by contrast, has no constitutional power that would enable it to initiate diplomatic relations with a foreign nation,” he wrote, adding: “Put simply, the nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not.”
Kennedy said Congress retains ways to to regulate the president’s powers, such as approving ambassadors and apportioning funds, but framed the decision as a victory for separation of powers.Kennedy said Congress retains ways to to regulate the president’s powers, such as approving ambassadors and apportioning funds, but framed the decision as a victory for separation of powers.
“In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected,” he wrote.“In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected,” he wrote.
Passports should be considered formal recognitions, the court ruled, and as a means of the president’s communication with foreign states.Passports should be considered formal recognitions, the court ruled, and as a means of the president’s communication with foreign states.
By passing the 2002 law, Kennedy said: “Congress wanted to express its displeasure with the president’s policy by, among other things, commanding the executive to contradict his own, earlier stated position on Jerusalem.”By passing the 2002 law, Kennedy said: “Congress wanted to express its displeasure with the president’s policy by, among other things, commanding the executive to contradict his own, earlier stated position on Jerusalem.”
President George W Bush signed the 2002 bill into law but also objected, writing that it could “impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority”.President George W Bush signed the 2002 bill into law but also objected, writing that it could “impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority”.
In his dissent, Roberts complained of “the stark nature of the court’s error on a basic question of separation of powers”. The executive and legislative branches share powers of foreign policy, he argued.In his dissent, Roberts complained of “the stark nature of the court’s error on a basic question of separation of powers”. The executive and legislative branches share powers of foreign policy, he argued.
Scalia also said the president did not have the exclusive right to recognize sovereignty, deeming Kennedy’s arguments “impossible to make with a straight face” and saying they were worthy of “the Mad Hatter” from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.Scalia also said the president did not have the exclusive right to recognize sovereignty, deeming Kennedy’s arguments “impossible to make with a straight face” and saying they were worthy of “the Mad Hatter” from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
Scalia argued that the president could always issue a statement to dispel any doubt over US policy toward Jerusalem, and noted the contrast in US policy toward China and Taiwan, which is similarly disputed but which can be listed on US passports.Scalia argued that the president could always issue a statement to dispel any doubt over US policy toward Jerusalem, and noted the contrast in US policy toward China and Taiwan, which is similarly disputed but which can be listed on US passports.
The State Department refused the Zivotofskys’ initial request to designate Israel on their son’s passport. In 2013, the supreme court ruled that the family could sue. The Washington DC appeals court ruled in the government’s favor.The State Department refused the Zivotofskys’ initial request to designate Israel on their son’s passport. In 2013, the supreme court ruled that the family could sue. The Washington DC appeals court ruled in the government’s favor.
Last year, the case returned to the supreme court. US solicitor general Don Verrilli reminded the justices of decades of consistent foreign policy with regard to Jerusalem, and argued that the law undermined the president’s ability to mediate peace talks in the Middle East.Last year, the case returned to the supreme court. US solicitor general Don Verrilli reminded the justices of decades of consistent foreign policy with regard to Jerusalem, and argued that the law undermined the president’s ability to mediate peace talks in the Middle East.
“Passport power” resides with the State Department, attorney Alyza Lewin argued in return, meaning that Congress had not encroached on any presidential authority.“Passport power” resides with the State Department, attorney Alyza Lewin argued in return, meaning that Congress had not encroached on any presidential authority.
The ability to request Israel on the passport was “created to give individuals the right to self-identify”, Lewin said. Justice Elena Kagan quipped that if that were the case, Congress had passed “a very selective vanity plate law”.The ability to request Israel on the passport was “created to give individuals the right to self-identify”, Lewin said. Justice Elena Kagan quipped that if that were the case, Congress had passed “a very selective vanity plate law”.