Supreme Court Strikes Down Law on Draft Evasion, Coalition Remains Silent
On Thursday, Israel's Supreme Court invalidated a law designed to halt the arrest of ultra-Orthodox draft dodgers. All nine justices agreed that a procedural flaw in the legislative process was the basis for disqualification. However, eight of the nine justices also ruled against the law's substance, citing a double violation of the right to equality: equality in the enforcement of criminal law and equality in the burden of military service.
"A harmful and invalid law, first and foremost, because it undermines a fundamental tenet of the rule of law, equality in the enforcement of criminal law," wrote Justice Daphne Barak-Erez. Despite the significant ruling, the political landscape remained calm, with no widespread public condemnations typically seen when the Knesset's legislation is overturned.
This quietude is understandable, as even politicians likely recognized the flawed nature of the law. The legislation was reportedly intended to appease the ultra-Orthodox community following the failure to pass a broader conscription law and to serve as a point of incitement against the judiciary. Neither of these political aims appears to have been fully achieved.
This ruling follows a recent Supreme Court decision that blocked the closure of Galei Tzahal (Army Radio) due to improper motives behind its legislative push. The article notes that laws can be disqualified if they contradict basic laws, particularly when enacted for an improper purpose, which can be inferred from illegitimate motives.
In contrast, Justice Minister Yariv Levin reacted strongly to an interim order preventing the appointment of new State Attorney's Office heads, framing it as an election issue. Levin stated that the upcoming elections would determine who appoints future Supreme Court justices, pitting his "national government" against a "left-wing government" led by figures like Gadi Eisenkot and Yair Golan.
The Supreme Court's delay in ruling on the interim order, reportedly an effort by senior justices to reach a unanimous decision, was unsuccessful. Justice Noam Sohlberg was in the minority, and his reasoning, along with that of the majority, has not yet been fully published beyond the outcome.
