Supreme Court

Amidst the return to fighting in Gaza, the Minister of Justice is taking advantage of the public's eye being off the ball to hastily overhaul Israel's judicial system.

Around half of Israelis think that it's unlikely that President Trump will turn away from Israel, if he thinks its policies are not aligned with US interests, while close to 40% think chances are fairly high or high; 73% of the total sample support continuing with the second stage of the hostage agreement and securing the release of all the hostages.

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. 

The proposed bill, which would change the selection process of the Ombudsman - responsible for investigating complaints about the conduct of judges and religious court judges - aims to intimidate judges and undermine their independence.

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. 

While the selection of Justice Amit as President of the Supreme Court was done in accordance with the relevant legislation, the Justice Minister has declared the procedure "fundamentally improper and illegal." His refusal to recognize the selection creates a precedent that may lead to the deterioration of the authority of other institutions. This is what the beginning of a constitutional crisis looks like. 

The lack of cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court has numerous consequences that will, among other things, harm the services provided by the judiciary to the citizens of Israel.

Following Justice Isaac Amit's selection as Supreme Court President, Minister of Justice Levin immediately declared he would refrain from any collaboration between them, describing the selection process as unlawful. This announcement is both factually incorrect and a serious dereliction of his duties. 

Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar presented their proposed changes to the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee (JSC) as a compromise aimed at achieving a gradual change in the judicial selection process, but many constitutional experts worry that the plan will have dire consequences resulting in the politicization of Israel’s judicial selection process.

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 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.

A new bill proposes to amend Basic Law: The Knesset, by expanding the criteria that would disqualify candidates and lists from participating in elections based on minimal and even past expressions, interpreted as sympathy or support for armed struggle of an enemy state or terrorist organization. 

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.