The State Department on Monday welcomed a Supreme Court decision to strike down a 2002 law that would have let Americans born in Jerusalem carry passports saying they were born in Israel.
Spokesman Jeff Rathke said the decision makes it clear that the executive branch determines foreign policy, not Congress, and said the passport law clearly went against decades of executive branch policy when it comes to the status of Jerusalem.
Like others before it, the Obama administration deems that no nation has sovereignty over the divided city of Jerusalem, a position that reflects claims to that city that both Israelis and Palestinians have made.
“The court’s decision in Zivotofsky vs. Kerry today confirms the long-established authority of the president over the conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy,” Rathke told reporters.
“The decision also respects his ability to ensure that his determinations regarding recognition are accurately reflected in official documents and diplomatic communications, including passports,” he added.
The case centered on Menachem Zivotofsky, an American born in Jerusalem whose parents wanted his passport to say he was born in Israel, not Jerusalem.
When asked whether the decision violates the sovereignty of Israel, which claims Jerusalem as its capital, Rathke reiterated the administration’s “consistent policy of recognizing no state as having sovereignty over Jerusalem.”
“This decision today helps ensure that our position on the neutrality of Jerusalem remains clear,” he added.
The majority opinion against the law was delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in part, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito dissented by saying the decision failed to understand that only some foreign policy powers are granted to the executive branch.
“Today’s decision is a first: Never before has this court accepted a president’s direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs,” Roberts wrote.
“In this case, the president claims the exclusive and preclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns,” he added. “The court devotes much of its analysis to accepting the executive’s contention. I have serious doubts about that position.”
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote another dissent that both Roberts and Alito joined, which said nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to go along with the president’s decision to recognize, or not recognize, sovereignty.
