Israel's Attorney General Urges Supreme Court to Freeze New Broadcasting Law

Israel's Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, has formally requested the Supreme Court to issue an interim order freezing the recently passed broadcasting law until a final decision is made on petitions challenging its legality. In her filing, the Attorney General argued that the legislative process was marred by significant flaws, making the petitions' chances of success "particularly high."

The state's position, as presented to the High Court of Justice, contends that the law's enactment process suffered from "material defects" both during its formulation within the government and its subsequent debate in the Knesset (parliament). The state highlighted that the broad and complex reform, comprising hundreds of clauses, lacked a sufficient professional, economic, and legal foundation. Furthermore, lawmakers were allegedly not given a genuine opportunity to study the provisions, form opinions, or influence the law's shaping.

The filing detailed "unusual defects" throughout the legislative procedure, including frequent changes to the bill's text, the late addition of substantial provisions without adequate review time, and the disregard of professional input. The state asserted that these circumstances infringed upon the Knesset members' right to participate and the integrity of the legislative process. It also pointed to the Communications Minister's "unusual involvement" in managing the legislative process and decisions, blurring the lines between government work and parliamentary committee functions, thereby compromising the committee's independence.

Regarding the interim order, the state warned that implementing the law immediately could trigger significant regulatory, economic, and structural changes in the media market that would be difficult to reverse if the petitions are granted. These potential impacts include disruptions to the news and current affairs broadcasting sector, affecting media organizations' planning and long-term business decisions, especially in the sensitive period leading up to elections. Conversely, the state argued that freezing the law would merely maintain the existing legal status quo until the Supreme Court rules, rather than introducing a new change.

In conclusion, the Attorney General's office stated that the combination of the high probability of the petitions succeeding and the potential harm caused by the law's immediate implementation justifies the issuance of an interim order to suspend all provisions of the broadcasting law pending the court's final ruling.