The reasonableness law, an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, prohibits courts, including the High Court, from reviewing government and ministerial decisions using the „reasonableness“ standard. This standard permits the court to annul decisions based on substantive issues with the considerations behind them.
It was passed last year amid furious protests that saw hundreds of thousands Israelis take to rallies in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and elsewhere across Israel.
– Twelve out of 15 Supreme Court judges ruled that the court has the authority to conduct judicial oversight on basic laws and intervene in extreme cases when the Knesset oversteps its legislative authority.
– The law was the first piece of legislation of Netanyahu‘s judicial overhaul — a plan that destabilized Israel‘s economy, military and foreign relations.
The Supreme Court struck down the law in an 8-7 vote.
Twelve of the 15 justices agree the court does have the authority to strike down Basic Laws.
(38 min ago)
Hebrew media outlets report that the High Court of Justice will publish its ruling on the government’s “reasonableness law” this evening and that it will strike down the controversial legislation, which is an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary.
This would be the first time the court strikes down any aspect of one of Israel’s Basic Laws, which have quasi-constitutional status.
Lawmakers from the Shas coalition party are reportedly seeking to advance a bill that would temporarily extend the time in which High Court justices can publish rulings on petitions, allowing the bench to postpone a decision that is widely expected to strike down a piece of the government’s judicial overhaul.
In an unprecedented leak, a draft ruling published last week previewed the court’s intention to strike down, by an 8-7 vote, a law limiting the court’s ability to reverse government and ministerial decisions based on the doctrine of reasonableness.
“The judiciary views very severely the leak of parts of draft rulings that have not been completed,” acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman said of the leak. “The attempt to influence pending proceedings and to harm public trust in the judiciary and its dedicated judges and employees will not succeed.” The final ruling is expected to arrive midway through January.
The report drew immediate, heated reactions, with coalition members chastising the expected decision and casting it as undermining the national unity being displayed during the ongoing war against Hamas. The group that petitioned for the law to be nullified claimed the leak was an attempt to intimidate the justices and push them to change their ruling and not void the legislation.
The leaked draft revealed an apparent 8-7 split among the 15-justice panel, indicating eight justices in favor of annulling the law and seven against
The justices who reportedly support the nullification are: former president Esther Hayut, current care-taker president Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Chaled Kabub, Daphne Barak-Erez and Ruth Ronnen.
The opponents are reported to be Noam Sohlberg, Yechiel Meir Kasher, Yosef Elron, Alex Stein, Yael Willner, David Mintz and Gila Canfy Steinitz.
(14.11.2023)
Members of the Judicial Appointments Committee are looking into the option of initiating a motion to elect Justice Isaac Amit as the president of the Supreme Court, despite the opposition of Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
(November 12, 2023)
(November 5, 2023)
In a letter from his lawyer to the Supreme Court, Justice Minister Yariv Levin pledged to convene the Judicial Appointments Committee within 15 days. The court had been scheduled to hear challenges to his hold-ups, which have resulted in backlogs in filling vacated bench positions.
„The justice minister believes there is no justification for being preoccupied with disputes during a war,“ the letter said.
Just a month before she retires, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut will conduct the battle of her life, and the decision she presides over will shape the life of the entire nation.
The announcement of the government’s narrowing of the Reasonableness Standard was received by Hayut in Germany, where she was visiting along with a group of Supreme Court justices. They cut short the visit and returned to Israel.
The Shin Bet security service reportedly warned Sunday of mounting threats against Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, both of whom have been central targets of right-wing figures for their opposition to certain government moves.
The warnings were expressed during a situational assessment held by the agency Sunday, Channel 13 news reported.
Supreme Court President Esther Hayut observed that the “fingerprints” of a plan designed to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from being ordered to recuse himself were “very clear,” while her fellow panel member Justice Uzi Vogelman said simply that “the fact is the law is personal.”
The court’s three most senior justices presided over Thursday’s five-hour hearing, in a case in which, for the first time ever, the attorney general has joined petitioners in asking for a Basic Law to be canceled.
Der Staat Israel hat keine Verfassung und fußt dagegen auf einer Sammlung von Grundgesetzen.
Bei der im Parlament beschlossenen Abschaffung des sogenannten Angemessenheitsstandards handelt es sich um eine Änderung eines dieser Grundgesetze. In Israels Geschichte wurde bisher noch nie ein vergleichbares Gesetz vom Obersten Gericht einkassiert. Sollte dies nun geschehen und die Regierung die Entscheidung nicht akzeptieren, droht dem Land eine Staatskrise.
After the abolishment of the reasonableness clause last week, the High Court did not issue an interim injunction to freeze the amendment to the law. According to Justice David Mintz’s decision, the hearing will take place after the court’s recess, before the departure of Justices Hayut and Anat Baron, who are considered liberal judges, in October.
It was also decided that the government and the Knesset will submit their responses to the petitions up to ten days before the hearing.
In 2021, the court outlined very narrow circumstances under which a Basic Law can be annulled. A number of petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the Nation State Law. While the court did not strike down the law, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut said that “there is one restriction, exceedingly narrow, which is incumbent on the Knesset in its function as the constituent authority, that it is unable to revoke Israel’s essence as a Jewish and democratic state through a Basic Law.”
The court could strike down a Basic Law if it endangers democratic principles such as those that deal “a mortal blow to free and fair elections, core human rights, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary,” Hayut said.
The bill, she pointed out, was submitted to the Knesset just days after the petitions were filed against Netanyahu, and observed that just hours after the legislation was passed into law the prime minister announced he was directly involving himself in the judicial overhaul agenda.
As such, it was designed specifically to allow Netanyahu to evade the conflict of interests agreement he signed back in 2020 which was authorized by the High Court, in order to allow him to continue serving as prime minister.
Until now, the High Court has never invalidated any Basic Law. Only “regular laws” that violate Basic Laws have been disqualified. Therefore, striking down the legislation passed Monday would be an unprecedented move.
The petition, filed on April 19, 2023, is supported by a number of former political and military leaders, including former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid Netanyahu’s attempts to bring about changes to the judiciary, even though he is on trial in three criminal cases.
Attorney General Ghali Bharav Miara warned Netanyahu last March against interfering in amendments to the judiciary, as he is prohibited from doing so due to his appearance in corruption cases.
The petition was filed by 39 senior figures from various fields, including Israel Defense Forces former Chief- of-Staff Dan Halutz.
On Thursday afternoon, it was announced that the High Court agreed to hear the petition.
Because Israel has no constitution and lacks a tradition of respecting the law and fundamental democratic principles, it’s enough to replace a few key people – the attorney general, the governor of the Bank of Israel, the Supreme Court president, the police commissioner and of course the heads of the security services – to pave a fast lane to tyranny and internal repression.
So it’s obvious why Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and their colleagues are working to replace a cadre of top officials in government agencies and making it clear that their replacements will be judged by only one criterion – their willingness to please the government and obey it without question.
(20. April 1997)
Netanyahu told CNN‘s Walter Rodgers he was „glad that the truth came out,“ and said the entire incident was „blown out of proportion and twisted out of shape.“
„It‘s politics,“ he said in an interview shortly after the attorney general released his report. „Of course there were people out to get us. But this is going nowhere. It‘s done. It‘s finished.“
(March 27, 2023 15:45)
The court rejected the petition by the Defenders of Israeli Democracy on all grounds, saying that judicial intervention was a last resort after all other avenues had been exhausted.
The petition was viewed as unacceptable in its framing, and the petitioners were ordered to pay NIS 5,000 for expenses to the state treasury.
Hayut said the clause “will deprive the court of the option to override laws that disproportionately violate human rights, including the right to life, property, freedom of movement, as well as the basic right of human dignity and its derivatives – the right to equality, freedom of speech and more.”
The planned override clause authorizes the Knesset, with the support of the government, to make laws without obstruction that would hurt these rights. That’s why anyone who thinks that this override clause overrides the court is mistaken. It’s actually an override of human rights in every aspect of Israeli society.”
The far-eight government’s planned judicial reform will “crush” the Israeli judicial system, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut warned at the annual convention of The Israeli Association of Public Law on Thursday evening. “Israel will soon mark 75 years of independence, the 75th year will be remembered as the year in which Israel’s democracy suffered a fatal blow,” said Hayut. “This is an unbridled attack on the judicial system, as if it were an enemy that must be attacked and subdued.”
Netanyahu‘s refusal to appoint a justice minister is a direct assault on this nation. It is that simple.
His reasoning is also simple: Netanyahu does not want to fill the role with someone who is not subservient and willing to go along with coordinated efforts to escape his bribery trial.
Rather, it is the public danger he constitutes and his conspiring to topple state institutions. Ordinary criminal defendants who behaved as Netanyahu has would have long since been ordered to remain in custody for the duration of legal proceedings, lest they obstruct the investigation and trial, and for disobeying a court order. But we can’t complain to Netanyahu about it, when the court itself gives him license to harm it.
In their decision on Thursday, the judges sided with Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who earlier laid out conflict of interest rules regarding Netanyahu‘s situation. Mandelblit insisted that the PM must be prevented from appointing officials who would have the power to influence the probe against him.
Our investigative department got hold of new evidence concerning the Submarines Affair (our efforts continue – the department still investigates the affair in full energy). In our petition to the High Court of Justice we requested the judges to order the following:
1. Criminal investigation of Netanyahu’s Steel Shares Affair. 2. Criminal investigation against Netanyahu in the Submarines Affair. 3. Establishing a State Inquiry Committee in order to finally investigate this severe affair.
Election Overdose podcast, episode 12, five days to go: Did Bibi‘s handling of COVID-19 help or harm his electoral prospects ■ How the center-left opposition failed so miserably ■ Plus: Polls galore and last-minute surprises
(09.01.2021)
The order could potentially postpone the calling of witnesses to right before Election Day, or right after.
The order came less than 48 hours after the same court rejected Netanyahu’s request for postponing his January 13 hearing next week.
The moment of truth for our future is approaching. What we saw the other day on the steps of the Capitol and inside it is a warning sign. Netanyahu’s readiness to break every rule and law is obvious, and reached a peak at the start of his trial, with that scene in the courthouse that could have come right out of a gangster movie. And in fact, the prosecutor in his trial is already under guard day and night, just like the prosecutors in the trials of organized crime bosses, and for the same reasons.
The trial has begun, and so a new situation is before us.
The High Court, its president, Esther Hayut, the prosecution, Mendelblit, all have been subjected to brutal, ugly attacks. There’s no reason to envy them. But if there’s one thing they understand from their own life experience: Silence and capitulation is no way to stop a serial attacker.
It’s important to be precise: In practice, this legislation does not limit demonstrations, it bans them. The proposed restrictions are so draconian that they amount to a prohibition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is attempting, in the most cynical fashion, to exploit the coronavirus and the restrictions needed to fight its spread in order to undermine fundamental democratic rights and to suppress the dissent against him and his incorrigible government.
Justice Neal Hendel has given the government a week — until October 7 — to respond to the Movement for Quality Government’s petition, according to an update by the plaintiffs on their Twitter account.
To understand what the crime syndicate that has taken over this country is after, one must first understand the goals of the man who leads it. The criminal defendant bunkered down in Balfour Street has three goals: to remain prime minister, to cancel his trial and to prevent the truth from coming out about the so-called steel shares and submarines affairs (which could result in charges that are much more serious than those in his current trial).
They well knew that over the years, Netanyahu has repeatedly proven that he has used the seat of prime minister as a pickaxe with which to dig a tunnel to escape prosecution. They know that for years he has exploited his position to discredit, lie, deceive, incite and mock the legal and judicial authorities, to evade the arm of the law; that for at least a year and a half he has been threatening that same tribunal from which he now sought permission to return to his seat, so that from there he could continue to crush that same tribunal.
He asked for it, and he got it.
It’s as if some suicidal spirit had seized the court.
The swearing-in will take longer than usual, both due to the emergency regulations and the surfeit of ministers, some of whom won’t have any idea what they’ll be doing in the cabinet. If the event could have a soundtrack it would probably be a requiem – a mass for the democratic rules of the game that somehow survived here for 72 years.
Eleven High Court justices unanimously legitimized the strangest, most warped governing coalition ever engineered in a political laboratory. We’ll never know if the gun pointed at their heads – the threat of a fourth election – affected their judgment.
The parties also decided that emergency orders instated to fight the coronavirus pandemic would not extend beyond six months.
The bill known as the „Norwegian law,“ which allows any Member of Knesset (Israel Parliament) appointed to a ministerial post to temporarily resign from the legislative chamber, will reportedly be dropped.
Every day that passes provides more proof of the twisted state of Israeli democracy, in which a defendant under criminal indictment leads the government and is a candidate to form the next one.
The moment Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his plan to use “technological methods from the war on terror” to track coronavirus patients, it was clear that it would be impossible to take this candy away from the government’s eager hands. The term “dangerous precedent” was coined for just such situations, in which a tool created for extreme situations slowly makes its way into daily life.
According to The Times of Israel, Chief Justice Esther Hayut signaled during the proceedings that the court will neither stand in the way of Netanyahu forming a government nor of the coalition deal moving forward.
When the pandemic erupted and a state of emergency was declared, Justice Minister Amir Ohana was the first of the ministers to act, and in a rather suspicious manner ordered the work of the courts frozen only a few days before the prime minister’s trial was meant to begin. It later emerged that the move was coordinated with Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and the courts administrator, Yigal Marzel. The state of emergency declared for the courts was then extended to May 10.