The High Court of Justice on Sunday pressed the Knesset and government over whether an overhaul of Israel’s Judicial Selection Committee would place too much power over judicial appointments in political hands, as all 11 sitting Supreme Court justices heard petitions seeking to strike down the law.
The hearing concerns six consolidated petitions against the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary and the Courts Law, passed by the Knesset in March 2025 and scheduled to take effect only with the next Knesset.
The court had previously issued a conditional order, requiring the Knesset and government to explain why the amendment should not be invalidated. The central legal question is whether the change constitutes an “unconstitutional constitutional amendment” – a Basic Law provision that so seriously damages core democratic principles that the court may intervene despite its constitutional status.
Petitioners and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara argue that the law would undermine judicial independence, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. The Knesset and government contend that the reform does not cross that threshold, while also arguing that the challenge is premature because the law does not yet apply.
The dispute centers on who gets to choose Israel’s judges.
Under the current system, the nine-member Judicial Selection Committee includes three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two MKs, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association (IBA). Supreme Court appointments require a seven-member majority, while appointments to lower courts require a regular majority.
The new arrangement would remove the IBA representatives and replace them with two public representatives who are lawyers qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, one selected by the coalition and one by the opposition.
For lower-court appointments, the new law would require a six-member majority that includes at least one representative from each of the committee’s three blocs: the judges, coalition representatives, and opposition representatives.
For Supreme Court appointments, a six-member majority would be required, including at least one coalition representative and one opposition representative, but not the support of any of the three sitting justices on the committee.
The law also includes a mechanism intended to break a prolonged deadlock over Supreme Court appointments. If two vacancies remain unfilled for a year, coalition and opposition representatives would each propose candidates, and the other side would be required to select from that list.
Amit warns that these decisions could change the ‘character of the judiciary’
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit said at the outset that the legislation marked a significant change in the way judges are selected, and urged the parties to focus on whether it harmed a foundational principle of Israel’s democratic system: an independent judiciary.
Much of the hearing focused on the concern that judges hoping to advance from the magistrate or district courts to the Supreme Court could come to see political approval as necessary for promotion.
“If I look 10 years ahead, what will a district court judge who wants to reach the Supreme Court have to do?” Justice Alex Stein asked, answering, “find favor in the eyes of politicians, write judgments that politicians like.”
Justice Ruth Ronnen said the law’s rules would inevitably shape the behavior of everyone involved in the system, including judges seeking promotion.
“The law sets the rules of the game,” she said. “They necessarily affect all the players.”
Justice Yechiel Kasher questioned the prospects for an otherwise outstanding district court judge whose political outlook was unknown.
“What are the chances [of advancement] of an excellent, diligent judge whose political direction no one knows being selected?” Kasher asked. “The answer is zero.”
Amit said the court should assess the reform over the long term rather than only in its first years of operation.
“Within a year of the next Knesset being elected, two judges could be selected with ‘chosen by the coalition’ and ‘chosen by the opposition’ written on their foreheads,” Amit said. “Over 15 years, the benches of the Supreme Court will be filled by judges selected only by political actors.”
Such justices, he warned, could eventually become Supreme Court president or deputy president. “Will there be a political chip implanted in every judge who is selected?” Amit asked. “Does that not harm the democratic system Israel has known for nearly 80 years?”
Justice Dafna Barak-Erez said the law was already affecting the present-day appointments process, despite its delayed commencement.
“Anyone with eyes in their head can understand: let us wait a little longer, in a few months the law will come into force, so why appoint Supreme Court justices now?” she said. “This is a reality that is already being shaped today.”
Her comments came against the background of the broader dispute over Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s refusal to convene the existing committee for extended periods to fill vacancies. The High Court ruled last month that Levin must convene the committee to appoint district court judges, following warnings that the shortage of judges was harming court operations.
Israel Bar Association is subject to removal from committee
The justices also closely examined the decision to remove the IBA from the committee.
Attorney Yitzhak Bart, representing the Knesset’s legal counsel, argued that the reform responded to longstanding criticism that elected officials had insufficient influence over judicial selection, as well as concerns about the IBA’s role and alleged conflicts of interest.
Barak-Erez responded that even if such concerns existed, they could have been addressed through narrower safeguards, calling the law a “radical solution.”
Justice Ofer Grosskopf questioned why alleged wrongdoing involving IBA representatives should lead to their removal from the committee, noting that corruption allegations against elected officials had also been proven in court.
During arguments for the government, attorney Dr. Yaakov Ben-Shemesh maintained that political participation in appointments does not inherently undermine professionalism or judicial independence.
He argued that elected officials are entrusted with many major public appointments and should not be presumed incapable of considering professional merit.
Amit rejected a comparison between judicial appointments and executive appointments, arguing that judges must remain institutionally independent from the government.
“There is no claim here that politicians are corrupt,” Amit said. Rather, he explained, “there is a combination of political and professional considerations.” Judges and lawyers, he said, were better equipped than politicians to evaluate judicial candidates’ professional work because they see them in courtrooms and are familiar with their decisions.
Justice Khaled Kabub noted that the issue was not whether politicians currently had any role in appointments, but the balance between political and professional considerations.
Once IBA representatives were removed and the Supreme Court justices no longer had to support Supreme Court appointments, he said, the concern was that political considerations would become dominant.
Justice Yael Willner questioned whether the deadlock-breaking mechanism created an incentive for coalition and opposition representatives to avoid compromise and ultimately choose candidates through their own political bargaining.
The government and Knesset have argued that the law seeks to create broader agreement across political camps, rather than give the coalition unilateral control.
Bart said judicial review should not be based on predictions about future conduct and argued that public representatives also have an interest in appointing qualified judges.
The government also argued that the court should wait until after the next election, when a new Knesset could amend or repeal the law before it comes into force.
Attorney Efi Michaeli, representing the government, described the delayed implementation as a form of public and political confirmation through the next election.
Amit pushed back, saying the law did not contain a formal requirement that the next Knesset reapprove it.
“If the law is problematic, what difference does it make whether it is this Knesset or the next Knesset?” he asked.
Baharav-Miara’s representative argued that the delayed effective date did not eliminate the constitutional problem. The attorney-general’s position is that the amendment reverses the existing balance between professional and political members of the committee and creates incentives that could influence both candidates and serving judges.
Representatives of the petitioners, including the IBA, civil-rights organizations, and opposition MKs, argued that the law would damage public confidence in the courts and leave judges dependent on political actors for appointment and promotion.
The hearing was briefly disrupted when Likud MK Tally Gotliv repeatedly interrupted from the audience. After warnings from Amit, court security removed her from the courtroom.
On Sunday afternoon, Levin said Amit’s comments about judges not being promoted for political reasons reflected what he called the current system’s improper veto over candidates such as Dr. Aviad Bakshi and Dr. Rafi Biton.
Levin argued that the amendment was designed to end what he described as the exclusion of qualified candidates for political and personal reasons. He also called on the Knesset to advance a proposal declaring that the High Court lacks authority to intervene in Basic Laws and that any intervention in the Judicial Selection Committee amendment would be void.
