Supreme Court Hears Marathon Challenge to Judicial Appointments Overhaul

Israel’s Supreme Court held a roughly 9.5-hour hearing on Sunday on petitions challenging a Basic Law amendment that changes the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee. The case was heard before the full bench of 11 sitting justices, after an earlier interim order was issued for efficiency. The law, approved by the Knesset in March 2025 and due to take effect with the start of the 26th Knesset, removes the Israeli Bar Association’s two representatives and replaces them with two public representatives, one chosen by the coalition and one by the opposition. It also sets a five of nine majority for committee decisions, requiring support from at least one justice, one coalition representative and one opposition representative, while no longer requiring a sitting Supreme Court justice to back Supreme Court appointments.

The amendment also creates a special deadlock mechanism for Supreme Court appointments, allowing coalition and opposition leaders to propose candidates if no agreement is reached. Most justices sharply questioned the law and subjected the Knesset’s representative to intense cross-examination. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit said the change would gradually transform the judiciary, warning, “Every year a judge will be appointed by politicians, within 15 years the new law will completely change Israel’s judicial system. A political chip will be implanted in the body of every judge because he or she was chosen by a political body, whether they want it or not.” He added that the reform could also alter how judges seeking promotion behave, saying, “When every set of considerations changes, the judicial DNA will also change.” Justice Alex Stein echoed that concern, saying a district judge seeking promotion would be incentivized “to write rulings politicians like.”

Vice President Noam Sohlberg took a more skeptical view of the objections. He noted that judges are already not required for all lower-court appointments and asked why elected officials should be presumed to act in bad faith. “Politicians are, after all, elected representatives of the public. What weight do we give them?” he asked, adding that some of the fears sounded “more like speculation.” Justice David Mintz also questioned whether the concerns justified striking down a Basic Law, and told the attorney for the attorney general’s office that the claim judges would alter rulings for promotion implied corruption.

Representing the government, Dr. Yaakov Ben Shemesh said the law is meant to increase public trust in the courts and give elected officials greater weight. He argued it would lead to “professional, honest, decent and independent judges” and make the system more balanced and more representative of the public. Knesset counsel Yitzhak Bart rejected the challenge, saying a Basic Law cannot be invalidated on assumptions about future behavior and that the coalition does not gain control over appointments. By contrast, the attorney general’s representative, Adv. Aner Helman, said the amendment aims at the “complete politicization of the judicial system” and would weaken judicial independence.

Justice Gila Kanfy-Steinitz warned that a ruling striking down a Basic Law could damage relations between the branches of government, especially if the political system can resolve the dispute itself. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Yariv Levin attacked the hearing in a separate statement, accusing previous systems of blocking some Supreme Court candidates for political and personal reasons and urging the Knesset to declare that the court has no authority to intervene in Basic Laws. After more than nine hours of arguments, the hearing ended and the parties now await the High Court’s ruling on whether the amendment will stand or be struck down.