Israeli Supreme Court Sets 9-Judge Panel to Hear Yeshiva Students' Arrest Law Challenge
Translated & summarized from Behadrei Haredim by baba
The Israeli Supreme Court scheduled a July 2026 hearing with nine justices to review petitions against a law barring the arrest of draft-dodging yeshiva students, after issuing a temporary injunction to halt the law's enforcement.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Supreme Court schedules July 28, 2026 hearing on yeshiva students' arrest law with nine justices.
- Justice Isaac Amit excluded from the panel, which includes Deputy President Noam Sohlberg.
- Justice Ofer Grosskopf previously ordered an expanded panel hearing while sitting alone.
- Court issued a temporary injunction preventing the law's enforcement, allowing arrests to continue.
- Grosskopf ordered government and Knesset to justify why the law should not be annulled.
- Decision references court's history on yeshiva conscription and serious petitioners' claims.
The President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Justice Isaac Amit, has appointed a nine-judge panel to hear petitions against the law preventing the arrest of draft-dodging yeshiva students. The hearing is scheduled for July 28, 2026, and will include nine of the eleven sitting Supreme Court justices, excluding Amit himself. The panel will be led by Deputy President Noam Sohlberg and include Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, David Mintz, Yael Wilner, Ofer Grosskopf, Alex Stein, Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, Yechiel Kasher, and Ruth Ronen.
Justice Grosskopf had previously ordered the hearing to be held before an expanded panel while acting alone, a move questioned since he is not authorized to decide on such matters individually. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from taking effect, thereby allowing the continued arrest of yeshiva students for draft evasion at this stage. Grosskopf also issued a conditional order requiring respondents, including the Knesset and the government, to explain why the law should not be annulled. This order was issued at the outset of the petition process, before any formal hearing or preliminary responses.
Grosskopf justified his decision by referencing the court's longstanding rulings on yeshiva student conscription, the implications of freezing arrest and enforcement procedures for only certain population segments, and the serious claims raised by petitioners challenging the law's validity.
Mentioned
