The Renewed Judicial Overhaul

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.

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.

The amendment to the Immunity Law proposed by MK Tally Gotliv would allow MKs to grant themselves immunity from criminal and civil prosecution, undermining equality before the law and creating inherent conflicts of interest that disproportionately protect coalition members from accountability.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

While the Israeli public has been focusing on the war and on the hostages in Gaza, the government—led by the minister of justice—has been preparing an assault on the independence of the judicial system.

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 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.

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.

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.