Israeli Government Refuses to Comply with Supreme Court Ruling on Broadcasting Authority Appointments

On June 17, 2026, Israel's Supreme Court issued an interim injunction freezing the government's appointment of a new council to the Second Authority for Television and Radio. The court, led by President Yitzhak Amit and Justices Alex Stein and Ruth Ronen, ruled that the outgoing council would remain in place until the petitions against the appointments are fully adjudicated. The government had approved the new council members, including Dr. Yifat Ben Hai-Segav as chair, in March 2026, but the court found "exceptional circumstances" warranting continuity of the existing council.

The petitions were filed by multiple parties, including the Journalists' Association, Keshet 12 News, the Movement for Quality Government, the Press Council, and the Association for the Preservation of Legal Values. They argued the government's appointment process was flawed due to haste, lack of factual basis, conflicts of interest, political affiliations, favoritism toward regulated media outlets, and inadequate Arab representation. The petitioners claimed the appointments aimed to alter the Second Authority's character and increase government influence over media regulation.

The government's legal advisor surprisingly supported many of the petitioners' claims, acknowledging fundamental defects in the appointment process and requesting the matter be returned to the appointments committee for reevaluation of candidates including Ben Hai-Segav, attorney Kinneret Barashi, and Dr. Haim Shane.

The court also expressed concern over resignations by some outgoing council members, suspecting these moves were intended to undermine the court's decisions and obstruct the legal process. To prevent paralysis of the council, the court excluded the resigning members from the quorum count, emphasizing the need to maintain functional continuity.

In response, the government issued an unprecedented declaration refusing to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling, arguing the court's decision conflicts with the law. However, since the council's decisions are implemented by administrative bodies rather than the government directly, the declaration currently has no practical effect. Legal experts warn this normalization of noncompliance could lead to a constitutional crisis, where government officials might be forced to choose between obeying the court or the government, risking the breakdown of public service and state institutions.