The Supreme Court declined to issue a definitive ruling Monday in a longstanding dispute about whether U.S. passports for citizens born in Jerusalem should, upon request, identify the place of birth as Israel.

However, the justices ruled, 8-1, that the lower courts erred when they refused to weigh in on the case after deeming that it raised a "political question."

Only six justices joined in the court´s majority opinion, which held that the "political question doctrine" does not apply where a statute conveys a clear right to individuals and the disagreement between Congress and the Executive Branch presents questions of the sort judges can readily address.

"Resolution of [the] claim demands careful examination of the textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties regarding the nature of the statute and of the passport and recognition powers. This is what courts do. The political question doctrine poses no bar to judicial review of this case," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion announced just before the high court opened the first of three days of arguments on the new universal health care law.

The State Department, under the administrations of President George W. Bush and then President Barack Obama, refused to comply with the statute, saying it intruded on the president´s prerogative to make foreign policy.

The Supreme Court´s decision effectively returned the case to a district court for further action. However, the majority opinion appeared to suggest, but did not say outright, that the plaintiff in the case, Benjamin Zivotofsky, had the better argument. Roberts´s opinion indicated that any court ruling on what passports say shouldn´t be seen as a definitive pronouncement on U.S. foreign policy.

"Zivotofsky does not ask the courts to determine whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. He instead seeks to determine whether he may vindicate his statutory right...to choose to have Israel recorded on his passport as his place of birth," Roberts wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have upheld the invocation of the "political question doctrine" by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.