Justices strike down ‘born in Jerusalem’ passport law
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Americans born in the disputed city of Jerusalem can’t list Israel as their birthplace on passports, siding with the White House in a foreign-policy power struggle with Congress.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court said Congress overstepped its bounds when it approved the passport law in 2002. The case mixed a dispute between Congress and the president with the thorny politics of the volatile Middle East.
The ruling ended a 12-year-old lawsuit by a Jerusalem-born American, Menachem Zivotofsky, and his U.S.-citizen parents.
The law the court struck down Monday would have forced the State Department to alter its long-standing policy of not listing Israel as the birthplace for Jerusalem-born Americans. The policy is part of the government’s refusal to recognize any nation’s sovereignty over Jerusalem until Israelis and Palestinians resolve its status through negotiations.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and that determining what a passport says is part of that power.
“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 wrote. “Recognition is a topic on which the
nation must speak with one voice. That voice must be the president’s.”
Justice Antonin Scalia challenged Kennedy’s analysis in a vigorous dissent that Scalia summarized from the bench. “Who says so?” Scalia said. “The text and structure of the Constitution divide responsibility for foreign policy.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the dissent.
In a separate opinion, Roberts cast the court’s decision as dangerously groundbreaking. “The court takes the perilous step — for the first time in our history — of allowing the president to defy an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs,” he wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but on narrower grounds.
Robert Reinstein, the former dean of the Temple University law school, said the decision was significant because the court held for the first time that the president has exclusive power in an area of foreign affairs — recognizing foreign governments — even though the Constitution does not explicitly say so. On the other hand, Reinstein said, Kennedy went out of his way to say Congress retains substantial authority in providing money for embassies, imposing restrictions on trade and refusing to ratify treaties.
Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official, said the ruling was a “very important decision.”
“It is a clear message to the Israeli government that its decisions and measures in occupying and annexing Jerusalem are illegal and void and that it should immediately stop these measures because it’s a clear violation of the international law,” Erekat said.
Israel’s government declined to comment. Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said Israel does not comment on rulings by foreign courts.
The court’s consideration of the case has coincided with acute Palestinian-Israeli tension over Jerusalem and strain in Israeli-American relations, highlighted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticism of the U.S. role in international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. President Barack Obama has said he remains unconvinced by Netanyahu’s efforts to clarify statements the prime minister made during his campaign for re-election that rejected creation of a Palestinian state.
The status of Jerusalem has for decades been among the most vexing issues in Israeli-Palestinian relations. Israel has controlled all of Jerusalem since the Six-Day War in 1967 and has proclaimed a united Jerusalem as its eternal capital. The Palestinians have declared that east Jerusalem will be the capital of their independent state.
————————
Associated Press writers Josef Federman and Aron Heller in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
Court won’t hear appeal over anti-whaling case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from a radical environmentalist group found in contempt of court for disrupting Japanese whale hunters off the waters of Antarctica.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and founder Paul Watson violated a court order to stop their dangerous protests.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the transfer of assets and control of Sea Shepherd to Australia and other countries didn’t change its 2012 order to the group to cease its dangerous activities. It said the group’s U.S. affiliate could be found liable for aiding and abetting the organization’s foreign offices to violate the court’s injunction.
The Japanese whalers are demanding $2 million in damages and attorney fees.
Justices reject NRA appeal over San Francisco gun laws
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another National Rifle Association-led appeal aimed at loosening gun restrictions and instead left in place two San Francisco gun laws.
The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks. A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has “no sporting purpose” and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the appeal from the NRA and San Francisco gun owners.
Gun rights supporters have been frustrated by the court’s unwillingness to expand on a seminal gun rights ruling from 2008.
Court won’t hear Maine appeal over Medicaid cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from Maine officials who want to remove thousands of low-income young people from the state’s Medicaid rolls.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that said the Obama administration could reject the state’s plan to eliminate Medicaid coverage for about 6,000 19- and 20-year-olds.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with federal officials that rolling back coverage for that age group was illegal because President Barack Obama’s health care law requires states to keep coverage levels for children until 2019. Maine has covered that population for more than two decades.
Maine officials argued that the cuts should be allowed because the Supreme Court has ruled previously that states can’t be forced to expand their Medicaid programs.
