Further to my blog post from a few months ago about Menachem Zivotofsky, an American boy born in Jerusalem, whose parents requested to have Israel recorded in his passport as his country of birth instead of “Jerusalem” as a city seemingly without a country, (against the wishes of the US Administration), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Court can indeed consider the “Jerusalem passport issue”, clearing the first hurdle for the family to continue their campaign.
(CORRECTION: I have changed the wording above in accordance with advice I received via reader Meir Weiss who posted a comment below) :
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The U.S. Supreme Court returned to the lower courts the issue of whether Americans born in Jerusalem may list “Israel” on their passports — a ruling that drew praise from Jewish groups.
The decision delivered Monday was a success for the family of Jerusalem-born boy Menachem Zivotofsky. His family for years has sought to force the State Department to agree to state on his passport that he was born in Israel, citing a law passed by Congress in 2002.
President George W. Bush signed the law, but in doing so refused to implement it, citing executive prerogative in foreign policy. President Obama has continued that practice.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, overruled lower court decisions that had contended that the judicial branch does not have authority over this area since it is not the courts’ place to determine foreign policy.
“The courts are fully capable of determining whether this statute may be given effect, or instead must be struck down in light of authority conferred on the Executive by the Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.
Most national Jewish groups backed the Zivotofskys, with many submitting friend of the court briefs on their behalf.
Among the first groups to welcome the latest decision was the Orthodox Union.
“With the ruling by the high court, Congressional policy on Jerusalem, ignored by successive Administrations, will get its day in court,” the O.U. said in a statement.
At least there is one Supreme Court in the world that seems to know how to implement judicial activism in a positive way.