High Court: Levin Must Cooperate with Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit

The Supreme Court ruled today, Sunday, in a decision issued by the full panel of justices, Ofer Groskopf, Alex Stein and Justice Yechiel Kasher, that Justice Minister Yariv Levin is obligated to cooperate with Supreme Court President Justice Yitzhak Amit. Levin responded to the ruling sarcastically, saying, “Rarely, I absolutely agree with the ruling that it is appropriate for the justice minister to work in cooperation with the president of the Supreme Court, when there is one.”

The attorneys for the petitioner, the Zulat Institute, Dr. Hagai Kalai, Adv. Idan Segar and Adv. Odelya Kassos, said: “We welcome the ruling, which clearly determined that a justice minister who seeks to deny the Supreme Court president appointed in accordance with law is seeking to deny reality. The justice minister must stop waging his battle against Israeli democracy on the backs of Israel’s citizens, stop denying the ongoing harm to the litigating public in Israel, and act, as determined, as soon as possible, to advance the joint appointments that have been delayed far too long.”

The Supreme Court made clear at the outset that, בהתאם to the conditions set out in the Basic Law, The Judiciary, since Justice Amit was lawfully elected by the Judicial Selection Committee on January 26 last year and swore allegiance before the president of the state on February 13, 2025, he has been serving as president of the Supreme Court. The justices stressed that “anyone seeking to deny this reality is akin to someone who believes that at the present time Mr. Isaac Herzog is not the president of the state; Knesset member Benjamin Netanyahu is not the prime minister; and Knesset member Amir Ohana is not the speaker of the Knesset.”

The ruling explained that the defects cited by the justice minister in an attempt to argue that the appointment was invalid are in fact the result of his own omissions, which are contrary to law. At first, the minister sought to prevent the appointment by refusing for an extended period to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, and only after a ruling ordering him to convene it did the committee meet, in a session from which the minister was absent, and vote to appoint Justice Amit. Later, the minister decided not to attend the oath ceremony, refused to sign the instrument of appointment, unlike other judges appointed in the same session, and refused to publish the appointment in Reshumot, the official gazette. It was further determined that the minister’s actions can only be viewed as repeated attempts to thwart the appointment and, once it was completed, as attempts to undermine its legitimacy. Therefore, the court held that the minister is barred from raising these claims and that they should be dismissed outright.

On the merits as well, the court found that the minister’s arguments had no legal basis and do not affect the validity of the appointment. The court clarified that the Judicial Selection Committee meeting held on January 26, 2025, at which Justice Amit was elected president, Justice Noam Sohlberg was elected deputy president, and many other judges and registrars were appointed, was convened lawfully and its decisions are binding despite the deliberate absence of three of its members. It was explained that the legal requirement that the committee not be fewer than seven members refers to the establishment of the committee as a body with powers, and not to the number of members required to be present at its meetings. A committee with nine serving members is authorized to make decisions with a quorum of six members or even fewer, except in the special case of appointing a new Supreme Court justice.

It was also ruled that the judicial appointment instrument signed by the president is purely declaratory and ceremonial in nature and does not require the minister’s signature of confirmation, and that publication of the appointment in Reshumot certainly is not a condition for it to take effect. Since the justice minister presented no other explanation for his refusal, the court ruled that Minister Levin must cooperate with President Amit as soon as possible to advance the appointments. “Indeed,” the justices wrote, “the wheels of justice grind slowly, but a justice minister who does not seek to make their work more efficient, but instead knowingly, if not deliberately, blocks it, betrays his role and betrays the public.”

The petition was filed after the justice minister’s sweeping refusal to cooperate with President Amit. The only reason Levin gave for his refusal was his view that Justice Amit had not been properly appointed, because Levin himself had deliberately refrained from carrying out the formal steps needed to complete the appointment, such as signing the appointment document and publishing the appointment in Reshumot. Because of these omissions, the justice minister argued that the Supreme Court presently has no president with whom he can cooperate. The cooperation is required for the exercise of powers that under law require joint action by both, including the exercise of authority to appoint presidents and deputy presidents to various courts, appoint associate judges, appoint a registrar to the Supreme Court, and appoint judges or retired judges to serve on parole committees.

Following the petition, the High Court justices issued an order nisi about five months ago, requiring the minister to explain why he should not cooperate with Amit and act to appoint judges. Justice Ofer Groskopf said at the hearing, “The minister is not giving a substantive answer as to why he is not exercising his powers.” He added, “A court without a president is like a hospital without a director. The minister’s answer, that he is not advancing matters in the justice system because he refuses to speak with Yitzhak Amit, is not an acceptable answer.”