Karhi argued that disputes over authority should be resolved through a gradual transfer of power, but said the justices were simply seizing powers for themselves. “The decision is in their hands. Therefore, it is clear that in their system we are not a democratic state, and this must be stopped by the government and the Knesset, and not let them continue destroying the country,” he said.
The High Court sat with 11 justices, not 15, because several seats remain unfilled. It is examining petitions against the reform of the committee that selects judges, a change that passed the Knesset more than a year ago, in March 2025. The amendment was made to Basic Law: The Judiciary and the Courts Law. If the court strikes it down, it would be only the second time it has invalidated a Basic Law, after the ruling on the law canceling the reasonableness standard.
During the hearing, the case of former Bar Association chair Efi Nave came up, alongside the question of whether his conduct justifies removing lawyers from the committee. Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit said, “Nave alone could not have done anything without the politicians. Maybe instead of two Bar Association representatives, politicians should be removed from the committee?” When MK Tali Gottlieb interrupted him, he ordered her removed from the courtroom. At one point Amit also said, “We are in a regime change, I agree.”
Attorney Anar Hellerman, head of the High Court department in the State Attorney’s Office, representing the position of the legal adviser to the government, asked the court to accept the petitions. “The harm to foundational state and democratic principles exceeds reasonableness. This is dramatic,” he said. Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg and Justice David Mintz challenged him, questioning whether the change is serious enough to justify intervention in a Basic Law. Mintz said Hellerman was presenting “a prophecy of doom, wailing and crying,” and asked whether a scenario in which politically identified judges emerge years from now really justifies judicial intervention. Sohlberg added that warnings were being made about what might happen in 10 years. Hellerman replied that it is more troubling how judges advance from magistrates’ court to district court, saying people will stay away from the system. Sohlberg and Mintz also criticized the state’s position and questioned whether the court should annul a Basic Law at all.
