This might be the ultimate "be careful what you wish for" scenario if you really want to make an argument based on free speech. This would not be a good outcome, for an obvious reason: Under that scenario, the U.S. State Department would have no authority to refuse a request when someone comes forward and demands that they have "Jerusalem, Palestine" listed on their passport.
Let’s be clear, a Congressional Act was enacted into US law by President Bush. President Bush, could have vetoed it, but chose not too. The law, signed into law by President Bush, gave US citizens a choice to have their place birth printed on their US passport as as Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem if they were born at that location.
Since the law provided a choice to a particular set of US citizens and SCOTUS found that providing a choice to those US citizens is unconstitutional, then its an attack on free speech and individual liberty.
It’s a step closer toward tyranny. It says Presidents can ignore sections of law they have signed into law if they disagree with the section, but sign it because they agreed with the other sections of the law.