Supreme Court Hears Jerusalem Status, GPS Tracking Cases Next Week (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Next week, the Supreme Court will hear two of the most significant cases slated for oral argument this side of the New Year.

Monday's argument in Zivotofsky v. Clinton stems from a disagreement between Congress and the executive branch over the status of Jerusalem. Menachem Zivotofsky was born in West Jerusalem to American parents in 2002. They went to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to obtain a passport for the newborn and asked that his country of birth be listed as Israel. The State Department refused, writing in Jerusalem instead. But a few months before the boy was born, Congress had passed a law telling the State Department to list Israel as the country of birth on the passports of all Jerusalem-born U.S. citizens who request it.

The Court must first decide whether it should even enter this spat between the two political branches. Only if it agrees to enter the thicket will the justices determine which branch should prevail.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear United States v. Jones. The D.C. police and the FBI thought that nightclub owner Antoine Jones was trafficking cocaine. They obtained a warrant, valid for 10 days, to track his movements with a GPS device placed on his car. They failed, however, to install the GPS until the 11th day and then used the tracking data to obtain evidence that led to Jones' conviction.

The question before the Court, then, is whether the police violated Jones' Fourth Amendment rights by putting a GPS device on his car without a valid warrant or his consent. Two federal appeals courts, the D.C. Circuit and the 7th Circuit, have already split on the issue. The justices will resolve the question in what will likely be a landmark decision for privacy rights in the digital age.

Watch the video for a summary of the issues, and come back to HuffPost after each argument to find out which way the justices seem to be leaning.

Comments

[Cynthia Rays]

04:51 PM on 11/07/2011

Jerusalem is not in Israel. What is the status of a child born in Bethlehem or Ramallah in the West Bank?

[nypoet22]

08:16 PM on 11/07/2011

jerusalem is israel's capital. that is the case regardless of whether or not one believes it ought to be. the child's status is it is a child, entitled to grow and learn without fear. it's only the grown-ups who are so concerned with names and places that they can't see the child.

[Fred Ricardo]

10:11 AM on 11/07/2011

Stateless and displaced Palestinians cannot continue languishing in refugee camps in Lebanon as non-citizens and in Syria as limited citizens. Isn't the right of return for dispossessed persons a legitimate right that is protected by UN General Assembly Resolution 194?

Religious extremists cannot have a role in resolution of the crisis. The Religious Right and Jewish extremists who quote prophecy to validate their positions cannot objectively seek a solution; they can only impede a solution.

Justice must prevail and injustices corrected. Isn't that a given in the civilized world?

[Naor]

10:31 AM on 11/11/2011

You are right, they continue to languish in refugee camps due to the discriminatory laws the Arab states such as Lebanon and Syria have which restrict the Palestinian's economic viability. The right of return, if applied to the Palestinians, must be applied to all refugees. Israel absorbed almost a million Jewish refugees due to the conflict, it should not have to absorb the Palestinian ones as well. Let the Arabs take some responsibility for the brothers in this conflict that they initiated. Also, UNGAR 194 is a General Assembly Resolution, which means it is NON-BINDING and has no legal legitimacy.

[thundermummy]

08:10 AM on 11/07/2011

The passport issues is a little trickier but what is so difficult about the warrant case? If a warrant has an expiration date then it has an expiration date.

[NuRock71]

03:33 AM on 11/07/2011

On the passport ... congress create the rules laws, the executive carries them out. Seems a simple separation of powers case. There is no wrong doing though because in the absense of a law from the legislature the executive may adopt policy until superseeded by law.

The GPS is a technology issue and the courts arn't consistent in their rulings in similar cases. The GPS provides no information that could not have be legally aquired by just watching the m/v's movements in public. It just does it remotely, while the warrant was no longer in effect it may not have been necessary to begin with. Many state courts have ruled that using some technology to aid observations requires a warrant other have decided it doesn't or that it depends on the nature of the technology. FBI is only held to the national standards and I suspect they will rule in the agents favor. Expect more cases like this across all levels of the courts as we evaluate the legal questions raised by new technology

[dweik50]

08:49 AM on 11/07/2011

If what you say is true why did they have to get a warrent in the first place?

[NuRock71]

12:31 AM on 11/10/2011

Good question ... there are a lot of possibilities but these are a couple of the most likely: many of these operations are partnerships with local authorities who would be held to the state laws which can be more restrictive or may have had court decisions on the issue that would apply to them. Another is preference, a warrant would usually remove one possible challange to the case but something in the case changed and weighing a gray area for technology against letting the case slip away the

[NuRock71]

12:32 AM on 11/10/2011

they went foward.

[dmbraddy]

09:49 PM on 11/06/2011

In United States v. Jones I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will decide 5-4 for the government. The 5 conservative justices will prove once again that their political bias trumps the letter of the constitution. They will overturn two centuries of precedent and mortally wound the 4th amendment. The issue isn't whether Jones committed crimes, but whether the police will be required to abide by constitutional protections for every citizen.

http://panderingpoliticians.blogspot.com/

[dweik50]

09:05 AM on 11/07/2011

dose the patroit act come to mind

[Aussieposter]

04:17 PM on 11/06/2011

Hmmmm! I wonder if the Palestinians have sought leave to appear in this case?

[GSR]

04:29 PM on 11/06/2011

I think the Palistinians should file Amicus Briefs just to remind Washington that they should be considered in any discussion involving Palestine.
Nice thinking fellow Australian.

[tacevad]

03:48 PM on 11/06/2011

I'm glad the SC is getting involved in these world shaking crisis cases. Much better job for them than giving personhood to non persons, or election victories to non-winners.

[rotorhead1871]

03:46 PM on 11/06/2011

just plain STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...its the same place....who cares what it is called....

[bealebkk]

02:58 PM on 11/06/2011

The black robe redundancy rides again...

[snafu20]

07:46 PM on 11/06/2011

good one

[bealebkk]

08:59 PM on 11/06/2011

thank youi

[Benignuman]

11:43 AM on 11/06/2011

Let's play fantasy Scotus!

I predict that the Zivotofsky, cased is judged a political question and they decline to decide it on jurisprudential grounds. Tie. Decision 9-0.

I predict that the government loses in US v. Jones. Jones Wins with a 5-4 decision, with Scalia (not Kennedy) siding with the liberal justices.

[cliffstep]

01:37 PM on 11/06/2011

OK!
I predict that Zivotofsky will be judged "Israeli" due to the parents' intent and belief. The child cannot , for State Dept purposes , be a citizen of a city (Jerusalem) -excepting Vatican City , a recognized city-state. I also feel the passport question must raise a certain conundrum: the US does not recognize Palestine as a nation.
And , while I would say no harm , no foul , Jones must win. A 10-day warrant is a 10-day warrant.

[Tuck Steelman]

11:00 AM on 11/06/2011

With tracking devices getting ever smaller and more sophisticated, I'm wondering when the day will come that law enforcement can get a court order to slip one in your food in order to track you? Some day will we all be required to have a tracking chip imbedded in us that reports not only your location, but biological information as well; what you eat, drink, endorphin levels? Will alll cars be required some day to broadcast a GPS signal for locating and a camera for driving habits? If you speed, will the car simply "email" the info from your car with your picture to law enforcement that electronically issues a ticket? Will we all be required to take a DNA test before we can get health or life insurance, creating a new class of exclusions called pre-existing tendencies. And finally, at some point technology willl be sophisticated enough that comands and thoughts will be sent wirelessly from your brain to the electronic device without any verbal or "keyboard" comands. You will be able to dictate a memo, letter, or report by just thinking it. Can the government get a court order to track and record your thoughts? Would a random stray thought be prosecutable? Could Corporations use any of these technologies in determining hiring, or employee productivity or corporate governance? Could a random inappropriate stray thought about a boss or co-worker get you fired?

[Trollstein]

09:57 AM on 11/06/2011

I have not studied the Jerusalem case closely enough to offer a well educated opinion but for certain, this is a parliamentarian issue of jurisdiction and governmental authority and has little actually to do with Israel.
Generally speaking, the congress passes legislation which the White House can veto but with sufficient congressional votes, such vetoes can be overridden. When such a piece of legislation becomes law, even the White House is required to abide by it. But what happens when it does not follow national law? Andrew Jackson even defied the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Cherokee Nation.
The more important issue is . . According to US law, who's territory is Jerusalem? One thing to keep in mind before answering: The correct answer is NOT dependent on which president happens to be in office at any given moment. Because territorial sovereignty is like the birth of a child. It is not a matter of changing opinion and is neither a reversible event. If the US Supreme Court (by outside chance) uses this opportunity to issue a decision on that question, I think there is a good possibility that Israel may find itself the legal sovereign of not only Jerusalem (et al) but the West Bank as well (at least according to US law).

[Stella Mack]

12:24 PM on 11/06/2011

Unfortunately US law does not govern international matters

[mjcc1987]

07:24 AM on 11/06/2011

It seems to me you all are missing the main issue in US v. Jones.

"... They obtained a warrant, valid for 10 days, to track his movements with a GPS device...They failed, however, to install the GPS until the 11th day..."

This seems to me to turn on if the warrant was valid. Period. If not, the evidence seized was from tainted fruit and not admissible. This does not seem to be about GPS, but rather the warrant.

In Zivotofsky v. Clinton, it seems that Congress is a bet micromanaging this and is getting into the constitutional prerogatives of the Office of the President. This SCOTUS allows this, then every congresswipe becomes Secretary of State and can amend any bill to add or delete any activity or foreign policy of the U.S. What you see now in congress you would see in foreign policy - chaos. Courts will side with the administration.

[TommyMcCarthy]

04:09 PM on 11/06/2011

Obviously the Jones case turns on the validity of the warrant
As presented.....(11th day of a ten-day warrant) it sholud be a slam-dunk

However, given the highly politicized view of 4 of the conservatives (and the plain corruption of the 5th) ...anything is possible.

Since Jones is apparently neither a billionaire or a corporation....the majority may "discover" that the narrow scope of the warrant may be blithely ignored.....or that WHICH ten days is subject to the interpretation of the police........

THIS court may even reach out and "discover" that warrants of ALL kinds were never really necessary....or that the entire bill of rights is non-binding and was always intended to be only a list of suggestions....(original INTENT....didn't you know?)

EVERY decision is now a potential Citizen's United (or Dred Scott) II
tm

[Clevelandinwi]

06:15 AM on 11/06/2011

One of these might require some 'common sense' - that kind of leaves the Big Five to flounder, as usual. skaleeeyah will be 'cute' to cover up his own lack of 'sense'. Too bad.

[Earl Hickey]

11:11 PM on 11/05/2011

US v. Jones is not so cut and dried a case. Though it is going to be one of the most significant 4th amendment cases in a long time.

First of all, two lower courts had differing views on the merits of the govt.'s case. That should tell you right away that there's more to this case than the article above mentions.

So the factors involved are:

1) Is tailing someone unconstitutional? Obviously not. The police do it all the time. And without a warrant. The lower court ruled that the GPS tracking was just this, but allowed the cops to be more efficient. And the lower court was a really "liberal" (left leaning) court.
2) Is using a GPS device to tail someone a special case? You can tell a lot about a person if you know his whereabouts 24/7/365. I think it is a special case.
3) If no warrant is required to tail someone using GPS, what's to keep the govt. from using it on everyone all the time? I don't think we want to go there at all.

It obviously needs to be heard and decided by SCOTUS.

As to the second case, if congress can't interfere with the executive's ability to perform foreign policy, then surely Iran-Contra was a legit operation. I think it also is in Congress' right to regulate citizenship and really has nothing to do with foreign policy.

[Clevelandinwi]

06:17 AM on 11/06/2011

Totally agree. Who makes this stuff so complicated? With this court, the next device out will be a 'GPS finder'.

[Earl Hickey]

11:54 AM on 11/06/2011

I would guess SCOTUS affirms the appeals court ruling - that the GPS thing is akin to search without warrant.

[snafu20]

07:48 PM on 11/06/2011

already here