Supreme Court Hears Full-Bench Challenge to Judicial Appointments Reform

By יעל יפה

Translated & summarized from Mako by baba

Center

Hebrew · 12 newsrooms covering

Plus

Israel’s Supreme Court is hearing full-bench petitions against a Basic Law amendment that changes the Judicial Selection Committee. The attorney general says the law is unconstitutional, while the government says the challenge is premature because it will only take effect in the next Knesset.

The story in 5 lines · by baba

All Supreme Court justices heard the challenge in a rare full-bench session.
The amendment increases political influence over judicial appointments.
Petitioners say the reform politicizes appointments and weakens judicial independence.
The government argues the case is premature because the law applies only to the next Knesset.
The attorney general says the amendment violates the separation of powers.

Supreme Court Hears Full-Bench Challenge to Judicial Appointments Reform — Editorial illustration generated by baba News, not a photograph of the event.

Israel’s Supreme Court, sitting as a full bench of all its justices, heard petitions on Sunday seeking to strike down the Basic Law amendment that changes the composition of the committee that selects judges. This is only the second time in the state’s history that all Supreme Court justices have taken part in such a hearing. The attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara, backed the petitioners and said the law is unconstitutional, while the government argued the case is premature because the amendment will apply only to the next Knesset.

The amendment, passed in the Knesset in March last year, is a centerpiece of Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s judicial overhaul, advanced together with Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar. It increases the political weight in the Judicial Selection Committee at the expense of professional representation. Under the new rules, the two Israel Bar Association representatives are replaced by two lawyers, one chosen by the coalition and one by the opposition.

For Supreme Court appointments, the amendment abolishes the special majority that was previously required and adds a mechanism intended to break deadlock. If two High Court seats remain vacant for a year without agreement, coalition and opposition representatives will each propose three candidates, and the other side must choose one of them. In practice, the petitioners say, this leaves the judges on the committee as observers and makes Supreme Court appointments dependent mainly on coalition-opposition agreement. For lower courts, the new system requires agreement from a judge, a coalition representative, and an opposition representative.

Six petitions were filed by the Israel Bar Association, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Knesset members Karine Elharrar and Yoav Segalovich of Yesh Atid, and additional citizen groups. They argue the change severely harms judicial independence and turns appointments political. Baharav-Miara said the law also undermines the separation of powers, which she called the central safeguard against abuse of governmental power and against violations of human rights. The government, represented by Dr. Yaakov Ben-Sham, says the court lacks authority to review Basic Laws on grounds of “ripeness” and that the next Knesset can decide whether to activate the amendment.

The coverage