Israeli Supreme Court hears full-bench petitions against judicial appointments overhaul

Israel’s High Court of Justice is holding a live hearing this morning with 11 justices on petitions challenging the law that changed the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee. The amendment passed the Knesset in March 2025, more than a year ago, but the court had not rushed to hear the case because the change is set to take effect only in the next Knesset.

The amendment was made to Basic Law: The Judiciary and the Courts Law. If the court intervenes, it would be only the second time it has struck down a Basic Law, after the ruling that voided the abolition of the reasonableness standard. The High Court is operating with 11 justices rather than its full 15-member bench because several seats remain unfilled.

Under the law, representatives of the Israel Bar Association are removed from the committee and replaced by jurists chosen by politicians. The new nine-member panel would include two ministers, including the justice minister, two MKs selected by coalition and opposition, three Supreme Court justices including the president, and two jurists appointed by coalition and opposition lawmakers. That means two-thirds of the body would be politicians or people chosen by politicians.

The proposal would allow a simple majority for most judicial appointments, while lower-court appointments would require a majority including at least one coalition pick, one opposition pick, and one judge. Supreme Court appointments would require a majority including one coalition appointee and one opposition appointee. It also includes a tie-break mechanism for a prolonged shortage of two Supreme Court justices, with each side nominating three candidates and the other side required to choose from them.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara opposed the reform, saying it would sideline professional considerations, weaken judicial independence, and make judges dependent on politicians. She said the change causes an “severe injury” to the independence of the judiciary, its professionalism, and the separation of powers, and even harms the “core characteristics of the state’s democratic identity.” The petitioners, including The Movement for Quality Government, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, MKs Karin Elharrar and Yoav Segalovich, the Israel Democracy Guard, the Israel Bar Association, and attorney Haya Erez, argue the new system would politicize judicial appointments and let the government shape the courts.