Last week, the Supreme Court heard the case of Ari Zivotofsky, a boy born in Jerusalem whose parents want his country of birth to be listed on his passport. (It currently reads only “Jerusalem.”) The legalities of the case are straightforward: Congress passed a law requiring that such passports read “Jerusalem, Israel”; the executive branch has ignored the law, claiming management of these matters as its prerogative. At issue here, argues Yishai Schwartz, is whether Congress supervises foreign policy, while allowing considerable discretion to the executive, or the president’s power in foreign affairs is absolute. It would be good, writes Schwartz, for the Court to make clear that the Constitution establishes the former view.

On Monday, the Court will have the opportunity to finally weigh these two views of presidential power. The case could not come at a more opportune time. President Obama, especially, has pushed his independent war-making powers to (and some would say beyond) their outer limits. He has stared down congressional hawks over Iran, and may soon try to loosen sanctions unilaterally. Congress and the courts must reassert themselves. This case, where the president is acting in defiance of explicit congressional legislation and where his power is at its “lowest ebb,” is the ideal means to do so.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”