Israeli Supreme Court Overturns Government Decision to Close Army Radio Station Galatz

The Israeli Supreme Court, in a panel of three judges including conservatives Yechiel Kasher and Alex Stein and liberal Dafna Barak-Erez, annulled the government’s decision to shut down the military radio station Galatz. The court ruled the decision was invalid due to "improper considerations," a rare legal ground in administrative law that invalidates decisions motivated primarily by illegitimate reasons. The judges found that the closure was driven by political motives rather than legitimate administrative concerns.

The court highlighted a key piece of evidence: a March 30, 2025 letter from Minister Shlomo Karhi to Minister Israel Katz, which explicitly called for closing Galatz and privatizing its frequencies. This letter, and the composition of the committee formed to execute the closure, whose members had previously expressed hostility toward Galatz, demonstrated a predetermined intent to shut down the station. The court emphasized that government decisions affecting freedom of expression cannot be based on disagreement with the content broadcast.

The ruling also touched on the broader legal question of whether laws themselves could be invalidated due to improper motives, noting the difficulty in proving such intent. The judges underscored that while the government has the authority to close Galatz or create a new investigative body outside the Justice Ministry, such powers must not be exercised based on improper or foreign considerations.

The court’s decision came amid broader criticism of the government’s handling of administrative matters, citing recent chaos at Ben Gurion Airport as another example of governmental incompetence. The ruling serves as a rebuke to ministers Karhi and Katz, whose overt political hostility toward Galatz was deemed a fatal flaw in their attempt to close the station.

Summary: The Israeli Supreme Court invalidated the government’s plan to close the military radio station Galatz, ruling the decision was driven by improper political motives rather than legitimate administrative reasons, thus protecting freedom of expression and setting a precedent against politically motivated government actions.