Supreme Court

It is increasingly clear that Israel’s future depends on the forging of two coalitions. One is a multinational alliance determined to turn the Palestinian issue from a driver of conflict into an engine of peace. The other, is an internal Israeli coalition ready to pursue a series of bold social, economic, and political reforms.

A recent judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court held that conditions in a notorious detention center must comply with Israeli law.

The Israeli Supreme Court recently issued a pivotal ruling, instructing the Minister of Justice to convene the Judicial Selection Committee and select a new President of the Supreme Court. This decision come after nearly a year in which this permanent position has remained vacant. 

After the Minister of Justice Yariv Levin refrained from convening the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint a Supreme Court President, the Supreme Court ruled that the Committee must convene to appoint a President—Prof. Suzie Navot analyzes the Court's decision.

Nine Supreme Court Justices ruled unanimously that the state must act to enforce Israeli conscription legislation and apply it to Haredi men. For this to be realized the IDF and the defense establishment must also make significant changes. These are the issues the IDF should take into consideration.

The Supreme Court ruling on June 25th addresses the question of whether the government is operating in accordance with the law. It determined that the state must act in accordance with the law and act to draft ultra-Orthodox. It also connects between the issue of exemptions and the criteria for eligibility for yeshiva budget funds.

Israeli Supreme Court Hearing on what is known as the "Ben Gvir Amendment" to the Israel Police Ordinance.

The discussion in the Supreme Court yesterday was not about whether a law exempting yeshiva students harms the principle of equality. It was about a much more basic question: is the State of Israel acting in accordance with the principle of the rule of law—that is, can yeshiva students be exempted from enlisting in the IDF, when there is no law allowing for this.

Judicial overhaul initiatives, along with other anti-democratic measures, have continued to be promoted by the government and the coalition in the Knesset. This document outlines the various actions taken in government that weaken the Israeli judiciary and democracy at large.

The research examined 42 countries included all the OECD member states along with other leading democratic countries.

IDI is currently in the process of composing a revised proposal for a full constitutional arrangement for the State of Israel as it marks 75 years of independence.

The appointment of conservative judges to the court, and even the enactment of a certain version of the override clause, will not bring about the destruction of the Supreme Court, and will certainly not turn Israel into a totalitarian state. However, the continued attacks on the Court, and the potential passage of the most extreme proposals pose a serious challenge to Israeli democracy.

The majority of Israelis think that the Supreme Court should retain its ability to strike down legislation that contravenes the country’s Basic Laws – and only 16% said that the Judicial Selection Committee that appoints justices should be politicized by increasing the number of elected officials serving on it.

In Israel, judges sit on the bench until they reach the age of 70, while advocates for changing the current method of their appointment often support the idea of limiting Supreme Court judges’ tenure.

A small majority agree that the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn laws passed by the Knesset when democratic principles are contradicted, while a high rate of the Israeli public, primarily from the right-wing and ultra-Orthodox, believe that the selection of judges in Israel is based on political considerations.

In an age of waning trust in state institutions and an ongoing health and democratic crisis, the public must be able to look towards the courts as a staunch defender of human rights and democratic structure.

The Prime Minister's trial reconvenes with a pandemic raging and the elections camping continuing. What can we expect?

Israeli's Supreme Court ruling on the Regularization Law touches on the heart of the legal battle inherent in the power struggle between settlers and Palestinians.

The Prime Minister’s supporters are trying to entrench a perception among the public that he is facing a political – rather than a criminal – trial.

It's one of democracy's substantial achievements: just like every citizen, Netanyahu will stand before 3 judges, whose task is to decide whether he is innocent or guilty

With Prime Minister Netanyahu's groundbreaking trial is set to commence next week, Professor Yuval Shany, IDI's Vice President of Research, and Dr. Amir Fuchs, the head of the Defending Democratic Values Program, briefed journalists on how the court process will proceed and the long-term legal implications of trying a sitting prime minister.

Live broadcasts brings a breath of fresh air and a better understanding of the Supreme Court

Israel's High Court handed down a unanimous decision - and the public saw for themselves that there was no devious plot to undermine the separation of powers.

Many Israelis attribute a left-wing bias to the Supreme Court and accuse it of extreme activism, but the hearings that were broadcast live highlight the vast gulf between the Court's image and the reality

IDI’s Dr. Amir Fuchs speaks with Richard Pater of Bicom about the recent Supreme Court hearing and the rulings they handed downs regarding the new government

Allowing Netanyahu to form a government would constitute a conflict of interest and would result in a negative and irreversible precedent for the rule of law

Israel is not the only country in which the court system has been curtailed, or had its activity modified, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Many countries are taking such measures, while at the same time striving to refrain from harming citizen's basic right of available access to courts.
Included are several examples from around the world.

50% of Israelis Believe that the State of the Country is 'Good'. Conversely: 58% of Israelis Believe that Their Leadership is Corrupt and 59% of Israelis Think that Supreme Court Judges’ Rulings are Politically Biased

IDI experts explain Israel’s immunity law, what happens when it’s requested and what the implications may be for the political system.

The political system is being dragged into elections for the third time within a year, for what seem to be extraneous reasons related to the question of how Netanyahu will handle his cases

Israeli Voters, Not Judges, Must Determine Who Will Lead the Country Next

Justice Minister Amir Ohana,has launched a fierce attack against the State Attorney’s Office. The Prime Minister who appointed him would be wise to remember that the angel of history is peeking over his shoulder.

Like all democracies, the principle of the "Rule of Law" exits in Israel. In recent years, there have been quite a few attempts to overcome this tenant, potentially causing long-lasting damage to public confidence in the justice system. Dr. Fuchs explains.

"This election will be less about which candidate ends up as prime minister, but rather the real possibility of radical judicial reforms that might soon pass in the Knesset and which would limit the Supreme Court’s ability to perform crucial oversight over the political system."

It turns out that voters actually want robust judicial oversight - which explains why the Override Clause and placing limitations on judicial review have not been prominant in the election campaign

On claims that the High Court ties the security establishment's hands, Dr. Amir Fuchs says "the truth is that when authoritative figures from the defense establishment appear before the court to support some important security requirement, the court almost always adopts their argument".

The Israel Democracy Institute offers a look inside efforts to reduce politicization of Israel's Supreme Court.

A special IDI survey examined attitudes of right wing voters and found that 42% of right-wing voters support a unity government and that 43% oppose additional political power for elected officials at the expense of the Judicial Branch of government.

This special survey examines attitudes of right wing voters on a number of issues related to September's election including the possibility of a unity government and recent proposals that would limit judicial review and oversight of Knesset and government decisions. 

New IDI Campaign to Warn Against Attempts to Decimate Supreme Court and Grant Unlimited Power to Politicians

Israel’s judiciary is under assault, according to some, or experiencing a necessary corrective to rampant judicial activism, according to others. Dr. Amir Fuchs, legal expert and the head of the Defending Democratic Values project at the Israel Democracy Institute, walks through the Knesset’s attempt to change the judiciary and the balance of powers in Israel, what’s behind it, and what it means for the country.

A controversial decision delivered by the Supreme Court on May 2 could be an important test case for its ability to withstand political attacks, which call to curb the court’s authority and power

The conservatives who think the court is moved by a malicious intent to stamp out politics are mistaken. Our High Court of Justice is squeaky clean, and of the highest possible caliber

"Our central mission—and we see you as a partner in this—is to strengthen Israel’s democratic core in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence"  says Yohanan Plesner in his address to President Reuven Rivlin.

The Prime Minister is currently fighting to remove the Supreme Court's power to strike down Knesset legislation, thereby turning the last protector of human rights in Israel into merely an advisory board. He is even threatening elections over the issue. 

“The campaign to remake the Supreme Court has been completed” said Justice Minister Shaked - so now with its new and more conservative profile, there is no longer any justification for the delegitimization of the Supreme Court.

Are home demolitions legal? And are they effective? Both IDF commanders and Israeli Supreme Court judges have raised doubts on the matter. In an op-ed published by The Jerusalem Post, IDI's Tal Mimran says the time has come to reevaluate Israeli policy.

Following the advancement of an amendment to a Basic Law on the issue of removing the authority of the Supreme Court to intervene in decisions of the Central Elections Committee to cancel candidates or lists from participating in elections, the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) sent out a sharply worded policy paper opposing this proposal. 

The Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) spoke out strongly against the graffiti painted on the Supreme Court building, discovered Nov. 4, and said it is a direct result of the slander that has been recently put out there against the court system by Israeli public activists. IDI stressed that it is the job of the Prime Minister and the parties to defend the rule of law. 

Dr. Amir Fuchs discusses the proposal to add an override clause to Israel's Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom that would enable the Knesset to bypass the High Court and deal a a severe blow to the main safeguard of human rights and minorities in Israel.

IDI Vice President Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer discusses the High Court of Justice's decision to uphold the Israel Broadcasting Authority's rejection of an infomercial in which the names of Gazan children who were killed in Operation Protective Edge would have been read aloud. 

IDI researcher Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler explains why he believes the Supreme Court should overturn Amendment No. 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration Act just as it invalidated its predecessor.

Should the State of Israel recognize "Israeli" as a nationality? IDI Vice President Prof. Yedidia Stern and Jay Ruderman assert that it is imperative for the State of Israel to continue distinguishing between citizenship and nationality. 

In an op-ed in TheMarker, IDI Vice President Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Dr. Guy Lurie discuss the benefits of establishing a new appellate court between the district courts and the Supreme Court.

IDI Researcher Attorney Amir Fuchs discusses two indirect threats to human rights in Israel: attacks on the Israeli Supreme Court and attacks against Israeli human rights organizations.

Attorney Talya Steiner warns that a Supreme Court's judgment that struck down an amendment of Israel's anti-infiltration law as unconstitutional points to significant flaws in Israel's process of policy-making.

Eli Bahar, former legal adviser to the General Security Service, analyzes the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to postpone ruling on a petition requesting the elimination of ethnic security checks in Israeli airports.

Attorney Amir Fuchs responds to Research Fellow Yair Sheleg's article "Appropriate and Inappropriate Evacuation," and takes exception to some of the arguments that it raised regarding the evacuation of settlements in Judea and Samaria on the basis of property rights.

Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer presents a contrasting view to Prof. Yedidia Stern's assertion that the Israeli Supreme Court's ruling on the exemption of ultra-Orthodox men from military service in Israel is "<a href="http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/articles/judicial-activism-at-its-height">Judicial Activism at its Height</a>." 

IDI Vice President Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Adv. Amir Fuchs analyze the proposed legislation that would allow the Knesset to reinstate laws that have been struck down by the Israeli High Court and warn of a threat to judicial review and civil liberties.

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Tal Law, after 30 years of avoiding the issue of the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jews from military service, is an expression of judicial activism that illustrates the transformation that the Israeli Supreme Court has undergone in the last generation. In this op-ed, originally published in Hebrew in <em>Makor Rishon</em>, IDI Vice President Prof. Yedidia Stern asserts that the Court went too far in this ruling and that its activism is hard to justify.

Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Attorney Amir Fuchs explain why they see the "Bar Association Bill" as undermining the rule of law. This bill would change the way that the Bar Association's representatives to the Judicial Appointments Committee are selected, and would apply retroactively.