Judiciary

IDI VP of Research Prof. Suzie Navot shares key points to keep in mind in relation to the Supreme Court hearing on Ronen Bar's firing.

The Israeli government's current efforts to dismiss the head of the director of the Shin Bet and the Attorney General, alongside its attempt to restructure the Judicial Selection Committee, reflect a broader shift toward subordinating legal and security institutions to political authority, raising concerns about the erosion of the rule of law and the future of democratic governance in Israel.

The battle over Israel’s legal system has resumed, threatening judicial independence.

Changes in the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee threaten the independence of the judicial system. The current proposals would lead to a complete politicization of appointments to all courts and should be blocked. 

IDI's Dr. Guy Lurie explains the far-reaching implications of non-cooperation between the two leaders of Israel's judiciary.
"It's the everyday citizens who are sure to pay the price."

Dr. Guy Lurie, a Research Fellow at IDI's Democratic Values and Institutions Program, offers a breakdown on the risks of politicization inherent in the recent proposal by Minister of Justice Levin and Foreign Minister Sa'ar to reform the Judicial Selection Committee.

Dr. Guy Lurie, Senior Researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, speaks to KAN reporter Naomi Segal following the election of Justice Isaac Amit to Chief Justice and the Minister of Justice's statement that he does not recognize the appointment and will not cooperate with him. 

The Sa'ar-Levin proposal represents a shift from prioritizing professional qualifications in the Judicial Selection Committee to emphasizing political loyalty as the basis for judicial appointments. This risks eroding judicial independence, compromising professionalism, and incentivizing ideological extremism.

Only a small minority of the Israeli public (8%) think that the judicial overhaul should be the government’s highest priority today; The majority of respondents (53%) support keeping the current structure of the Judicial Selection Committee. Only around a quarter (27%) suppor adding politicians to the Committee.

In a statement following publication of the new initiative released by Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, IDI experts weigh in on the new proposal to change the Judicial Selection Committee. 

In response to a petition filed against him regarding the intentional delay in appointing a president of the Supreme Court, Minister Levin claimed that it is impossible to sanction him because he enjoys “substantive immunity.” A closer examination of the law reveals that this is not the case.

In September, the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to fulfill his duty to convene the Committee because the system cannot be paralyzed. Since then, the Minister has convened the committee, but refused to appoint the Supreme Court President. Now, the Court has ordered him to do so.

The ICC's unprecedented arrest warrants against leaders of a democratic state carry severe and far-reaching consequences, yet Israel still has far-reaching options to mitigate the damage. 

Recently, Israel has faced a number of situations that could lead to a constitutional crisis. What is a constitutional crisis and why is it dangerous for the stability of democracy? IDI experts explain.

How is the Chief Justice in Israel selected, what is the principle of seniority and how does this compare internationally? Dr. Guy Lurie explains the roles and responsibilities of the Chief Justice, an issue that is currently at the heart of a dispute between the Minister of Justice and the Courts.

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.

Disregard of the Attorney General’s authority to interpret the law by several government ministers is leading Israel toward a constitutional crisis.

With the outbreak of the war in October 2024, the Prime Minister announced that he was halting all legislation relating to the judicial overhaul, however, various government actions raise questions regarding its intentions in relation to the overhaul and whether it might be trying to advance it by other means beyond legislation.

An in-depth analysis of the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legal consequences of Israel's policies and practices in the 'occupied Palestinian territory.'

The UN report paints a disturbing picture in which countries experience “autocratization”—an erosion of the foundations of democracy—through actions that undermine the judicial system’s independence. In Israel, the current government is aiming to undermine judicial independence in order to consolidate its power and authority at the expense of individual rights and the rule of law.

IDI experts outline the initiatives and measures undertaken by the government that, taken together, constitute a concentrated effort undermine Israel's democratic institutions. At the core of these efforts is a dramatic attempt to weaken the status of the Attorney General; increased politicization of the police; continued undermining of the independence of the judiciary and more.

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.

Across the issues of US-relations, the war in Gaza, evacuees from the south and the north, fighting Hezbollah, and public diplomacy efforts abroad—both Jewish and Arab Israelis give the government low grades.

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.

Israel's Supreme Court convened to hear arguments on the issue of drafting ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students who no longer are exempt from military service, and the legality of providing funding for yeshivas that enroll them as long as no new law has been legislated on this issue.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) issued new temporary orders against Israel this week. Justice Barak’s dissenting opinion would seem to offer an important lesson for the future. Professional, focused, and well-founded legal criticism—as opposed to the very different means that are currently being widely discussed and pursued—is likely the best way to deal with the ICJ.

In new research, IDI experts Shlomit Ravitsky Tur-Paz and Gabi Gordon find that conscripting even a small percentage of eligible Haredi men would save the Israeli economy billions of shekels annually. They found that drafting even 20% of Haredi men would significantly reduce the number of days necessary for reserve duty and save 2.5 billion shekels in budgetary expenses by 2050. Full conscription of the ultra-Orthodox men would eliminate the need for reserve duty by 2045 and save the Israeli economy between 8-10 billion shekels.

Response to the Government's Proposal for Haredi (non-) Conscription by Yohanan Plesner, President of the Israel Democracy Institute, and Dr. Gilad Malach, Head of IDI's Ultra-Orthodox in Israel Program

The Israeli democracy regulates the operation of the judiciary through the constraints of formal rules that check the political actors, the individual judges, and the judiciary. Yet beyond these formal rules, informal institutions and practices are sometimes equally important in the operation of the judiciary, as they are in any constitutional system. This article discusses informal institutions that are important in the operation and independence of the Israeli judiciary.

What is the connection between the expiration of the conscription law and the budgets for yeshivas? What exactly was discussed in the Supreme Court and is the state in violation of the law? Bottom line, will the ultra-Orthodox be recruited, or not?

Prof. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute and an expert in international law, made the following comments on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision today regarding provisional measures in the case of South Africa v. Israel on the Application of the Genocide Convention.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague held public hearings in the case against Israel for alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. In this essay we address three aspects of the case: the ways the parties framed the events, the request to suspend Israeli military operations, and the conditions for issuing provisional measures. 

Two judgments issued by the Supreme Court in the first week of 2024 deal a decisive blow to the Netanyahu government’s efforts to radically rebalance the branches of government.

One of the claims brought forth in the Application against Israel that it is committing genocide against the Palestinians is that many senior members of the government made references to the biblical precept to wipe out the memory of the ancient Amaleks. This is my professional opinion on the meaning of these locutions and the use made of them in the Application. 

On January 11th, the court will begin by hearing South Africa’s oral argument, with Israel presenting its counter argument on January 12th.

What does the international law state and what are the possible implications of these proceedings on the ongoing war and Israel’s international standing? We’ve compiled a shortlist of important information you should have.

The Supreme Court's ruling to strike down the amendment made to the Basic Law: The Judiciary and reinstate the Standard of Reasonableness is a landmark decision on an issue that has been exceptionally divisive within Israeli society. Will this lead to a constitutional crisis? 8 Key points from IDI's experts examining the court's decision.

This decision refocused our attention not only on the specific law it struck down but also on the unfinished business of completing our country’s constitutional framework

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court has authority to perform judicial review on Basic Laws, and that an intervention was necessary in the case of the amendment to the Basic Law: The Judiciary revoking the Standard of Reasonableness. What are the implications?

The recent application by South Africa to the International Court of Justice brought against Israel under the Genocide Convention illuminates how international law and international institutions can be employed to address the Israel-Hamas war.

The Israel Democracy Institute issued the following statement on the High Court of Justice’s decision to strike down the amendment passed in July to the Basic Law: The Judiciary, eliminating the Court’s use of the Reasonableness Standard.

Tendentious interpretations of international law are not surprising considering the high emotions surrounding the long and bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, to serve its purpose guiding the conduct of States and retain a high degree of legitimacy, international law must serve as a common legal language. 

Appeals to the HCJ to intervene in decisions relating to the release of prisoners are fairly common, but the Court has repeatedly rejected these appeals, noting that on issues of national defense and diplomacy, the bounds for judicial oversight are particularly narrow. 

On November 5, 2023, Minister of Justice Yariv Levin notified the High Court of Justice that he will convene the Judicial Selection Committee within 15 days. Selecting judges is not possible in such a short time frame, so we will have to wait and see whether this decision leads to the completion of judge appointments to the vacant positions.

Justice Hayut's retirement from the presidency of the Supreme Court was well-known in advance, however, the Minister of Justice's refusal to convene the Judicial Selection Committee leaves Israel with a temporary replacement during a national emergency.

What is a special state of emergency and who declares it?

Minister of Justice Levin declared a "special state of emergency" on October 7th, which has since been extended and is currently valid until October 20th. How does this affect the justice system in Israel?

On the question of Unreasonableness, it appears that the dispute is not only between the Knesset and the Supreme Court, but also among the justices themselves. There are many possibilities, but only one ruling, which will be handed down no later than mid-January 2024.

Three petitions before the Israeli Supreme Court are transforming the usually slow month of September into a pivotal one in Israel’s ongoing judicial crisis.

On September 12, 2023, an unprecedented panel of 15 Supreme Court Justices will convene to hear petitions requesting to strike down the recent amendment to the "Basic Law: The Judiciary."

The Judicial Selection Committee has not met for more than a year, and during this period, various positions held by judges have been vacated.

IDI expert Dr. Guy Lurie met with KAN's Mark Weiss to discuss Supreme Court Justice Yosef Elron's announcement that he would seek election as the next Supreme Court president, a decision that flies in the face of the "seniority method" that has been used to select the court's president to date. 

The proposed legislation evicerates the only check on executive and legislative power in Israel.

Coercive regulations and enforcement, especially in democratic countries, have a more limited reach than governments are prepared to admit.

Why it is a bad idea to allow the coalition the deciding voice in the appointment of Supreme Court justices? Is it true that in Israel, judges appoint themselves? The complete guide to the impending constitutional reform.

The optimistic hope that the majority will not take advantage of its power to perpetuate its rule is akin to leaving the cream to be guarded by 61 cats. The temptation is just too strong.

Prof. Suzie Navot sits down with Richard Pater of Bicom, to discuss judicial reform. Prof. Navot explains the background of Israel’s legal system, its uniqueness among other parliamentary democracies and the significance of potentially implementing an override clause.

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.

Among assertions that a limited tenure for justices would prevent excessive influence by past governments on the current composition of the Supreme Court bench and allow the current government to replace a larger number of justices - what is the average tenure of Israeli Supreme Court justices?

Despite a decline in trust - the public still believes that in the Court’s role as a professional independent entity and guardian of democratic principles.

The imminent retirement of Judge Kara will leave the Supreme Court without an Arab justice, yet there is only one Arab candidate on the list of possible replacements. We must move beyond filling the "Arab chair" and ensure proportional representation of Arabs as well as women and Mizrahim in the courts

Prof. Amichai Cohen discusses his new book The Constitutional Revolution and Counter-Revolution, and explains the changing role of the High Court of Justice in maintaining the checks and balances of Israeli democracy.

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 latest judgement in a series of legal challenges to controversial measures adopted by the Israeli government in response to COVID, shows that the Supreme Court still plays an important role in checking government excess and reaffirming basic democratic and human rights values

Elections are an attempt, not always successful, to translate the voters’ wishes into a well-functioning and representative government - however no democracy anywhere in the world makes do with elections to a single institution as the only means for implementing democracy

The Israel Democracy Institute responded Thursday to the proposed bill to cancel the seniority system and deferral of deliberations on choosing Esther Hayut as the president of the Supreme Court, saying such steps harm the basic principles of the work of the judicial branch.

The four new Judicial Appointments Committee selections to the Supreme Court last month have led to the usual partisan responses, breaking down along the lines of “winners” and “losers.” Despondent claims of an “anti-constitutional revolution” are being made simultaneously with celebratory assertions of “making history.” The facts, however, are quite different.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced recently that Israel and Turkey had reached an agreement leading to reconciliation between the two countries – and the Knesset approved the deal. Now the question becomes: will the deal have the impact Israeli soldiers are hoping for? Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

The Israeli High Court's claim that home demolitions need not be applied to Jews because they support terror less than Palestinians must be rejected. (This article was originally published by Haaretz.)

IDI Vice President Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer remembers Israeli Supreme Court Deputy President Mishael Cheshin, a luminary of the Israeli judicial system and warrior against governmental corruption, who regularly spent time at IDI and whose clear voice on legal issues will be sorely missed.

In an article in Mishpat U'Mimshal, IDI researcher Dr. Guy Lurie addresses the issue of the lack of Arab judges in Israeli courts. This abstract presents the main issues discussed in the article.

The demise of the 19th Knesset was hastened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's firing of Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni. In the article below, IDI researcher Dr. Ofer Kenig discusses the various grounds for firing ministers in the past and how the current case fits into Israeli political practice.

On December 8, 2014, just before the Knesset dissolved itself to prepare for early elections, it enacted the Law for Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel. IDI's Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler reviews this development.

A summary of a legal opinion on a proposed amendment to Basic Law: The Knesset that was submitted by Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Dr. Amir Fuchs to the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs.

IDI Vice President Yedidia Stern asserts that there is a conflict of interest between the Attorney General’s two functions—as State Attorney and State Prosecutor—and the office must be split in two. 

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 Researcher Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler presents a brief overview of the Israeli High Court of Justice's decision to strike down Amendment No. 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration Law, and explores several themes that may be of comparative constitutional interest. 

Dr. Amir Fuchs discusses the Israeli High Court of Justice's decision to uphold the "Admissions Committees Law," which allows small communities to reject applicants due to a lack of social suitability. 

Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Admiral Ami Ayalon argue that while the heart has difficulty defending MK Hanin Zoabi's freedom of expression, the head demands that we object to the decision to remove her from parliamentary activity for six months.

IDI Researcher Dr. Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler analyzes a Supreme Court ruling that recalled a book and struck a balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, and discusses larger questions of privacy in the digital age.

Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Attorney Amir Fuchs assert that the only way to guarantee Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state is not through a Basic Law that defining Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people but through a Constitution. 

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 The Jerusalem Post, IDI Vice President Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer analyzes Jonathan Pollard's life sentence and calls on President Obama to put an end to Pollard's incarceration In the name of the shared commitment to justice.

As the Shaked Committee begins to vote on its proposal for the Haredi draft, Prof. Yedidia Z. Stern warns that the proposal's recommendation to exempt Haredi men of draft age during a three-year "adjustment period" is both inequitable and ineffective. 

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.

Most criminal cases in Israel are prosecuted by the Israel Police rather than by the State Prosecutor. Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Dr. Guy Lurie call for a division that would make the Police responsible for investigations and the State Prosecutor responsible for indictments and trials.

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.

Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler shares observations on the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court that an amendment of the Prevention of Infiltration Law that mandated lengthy detention of asylum seekers is unconstitutional.

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.

In this response to the Supreme Court ruling on the Tal Law, IDI Senior Researcher Yair Sheleg asserts that the exemption of ultra-Orthodox men from military service is an unparalleled <em>Hillul Hashem</em>—a desecration of the Name of God, and shares his views of a possible solution.

IDI Vice President of Research Prof. Yedidia Stern sets the  controversy over mass transportation on Shabbat and holidays in Israel in a broader context, and distinguished between the need for an Israeli-Jewish Shabbat (Sabbath) rather than a religious Shabbat.

Is the tension over the arrests of Rabbis Dov Lior and Ya’acov Yosef a precursor to an inevitable collision between Halakha and the judiciary? IDI Vice President of Research Prof. Yedidia Stern shared his views on this question with Jonah Mandel of The Jerusalem Post.

IDI Vice President Prof. Yedidia Stern dissects the tenuous road traveled by the Israeli court system, in an article that was published at the end of the third millennium as part of a collaboration between IDI and Walla!, a popular Israeli website.

Last week, the Justice Minister proposed a bill aimed at separating the duties of the Attorney General from those of the Public Prosecutor. Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer writes that Friedman's several attempts to introduce changes to the judicial system should be seen for what they are: a part of his larger agenda of weakening the judicial system.

The Levin-Saar plan abandons key elements of his earlier judicial overhaul, proposing changes to judicial selection and Basic Laws. While flawed, it offers a potential starting point for bipartisan negotiations to resolve Israel’s constitutional crisis.

Democracies ensrhine onstitutional rights, and give the court the power to protect them, out of concern that the legislator may act rashly, or even tyrannically - so then why should we "override" the court's authority - when we have no other constraints

A summary of where the law stands regarding alleged wrong doing by the premier, as well as timely suggestions for reform, are in order.

Even before the conclusion of the Elor Azaria trial, there were calls for the 'Hebron Shooter' to be pardoned. Under such circumstances, what does a pardon entail and how can an IDF soldier who had been sentenced in a military court of law be granted one?

Ahead of today’s vote on a bill that would enable religious courts to conduct arbitration with the agreement of both parties, similar to the arbitration that takes place in other frameworks, a policy statement was sent to the Ministerial Committee on Legislation by Israel Democracy Institute’s Dr. Benny Porat.