Israeli Government Refuses to Comply with Supreme Court Ruling on Communications Authority

The Israeli government has taken a historic step by unanimously deciding not to recognize any decisions, approvals, appointments, or actions made by the Second Authority Council for Television and Radio unless it meets explicit legal criteria. This decision follows a Supreme Court ruling on June 17, 2026, which reinstated the council from the previous government despite its membership falling below the legally required minimum. The court also invalidated the resignations of former council members, ruling they were made in bad faith, and annulled the appointment of the new council.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was absent from the vote due to a conflict of interest related to communications. The government declared that any Supreme Court ruling contradicting the clear language of the law cannot confer authority not granted by legislation, and therefore it will not recognize actions taken under such rulings. It also rejected any claims of reliance or established practice in the communications market based on decisions by a council that does not meet the statutory threshold.

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who initiated the move, criticized the Supreme Court judges, stating, "Judges are not the Knesset, and overreach does not grant authority to erase explicit legal conditions, even if inconvenient." He emphasized that the government will not support judicial decisions that override parliamentary law. Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin echoed this, underscoring that the rule of law requires all branches, including the judiciary, to adhere strictly to legislation. He warned that rulings in direct conflict with the law undermine the separation of powers and pledged to continue legal efforts to restore proper rule of law.

This constitutional crisis highlights escalating tensions between Israel's executive branch and judiciary, with the government openly challenging the Supreme Court's authority over statutory interpretation and administrative appointments. The government’s stance signals a firm refusal to comply with judicial decisions it views as exceeding legal bounds, setting the stage for ongoing legal and political confrontation.