In a significant blow to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, Israel's Supreme Court has overturned a highly contentious law aimed at diminishing the Court's authority. The law, passed by the Parliament in July, sought to restrict judges from striking down government decisions deemed "unreasonable." However, in a landmark ruling, the Court voted 8 to 7 to invalidate the law, affirming the importance of democracy and the separation of powers.
The liberal Movement for Quality Government in Israel hailed the ruling as a "tremendous public victory for those who seek democracy." They stated that it sent a resounding message to the government and ministers who aimed to exempt themselves from the rule of law, reaffirming the existence of a democratic system and the crucial principle of the separation of powers.
The division evident in the closely contested vote reflects the deep divisions within Israeli society regarding the authority of the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the law caused "severe and unprecedented harm to the core characteristics of Israel as a democratic state." As a result, the decision will take immediate effect. Eight judges voted to overturn the law, while seven voted in favor of it.
The law was introduced as an amendment to a Basic Law, marking the first step in a series of judicial changes pledged by the government when it assumed office at the end of 2022. This populist overhaul sharply divided the nation, creating social unrest and drawing criticism, even from the White House. Demonstrations both in favor of and against the proposed changes mobilized hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
Although the focus shifted to external threats amid the ongoing armed conflict with Hamas, the deep internal divisions persist. Critics argue that the court's use of the "reasonableness" standard provides necessary checks against cronyism, safeguards human rights, and promotes rational decision-making. While the court possesses other tools, this standard is regarded as the most potent.
The ruling to overturn the law is significant as it hinders the government's attempt to carry out a judicial overhaul and ensures that decisions are made in the public interest rather than for personal gain. Additionally, the Court asserted its authority to undertake judicial review of Basic Laws and to intervene when the Parliament exceeds its constitutional authority, with 12 judges in favor and 15 against.
In response to the ruling, Netanyahu's Likud party criticized the Court, claiming that it threatens national unity, particularly during a time of war. The party described the decision as contrary to the will of the people. The ongoing conflict with Hamas plays backdrop to these rulings, highlighting the tensions that exist in Israeli society regarding the nation's Jewish identity and its obligations to non-Jews. The political leadership has taken a more religious and nationalistic stance, while the legal establishment has remained more liberal, leading to disagreements over the Court's protection of human and minority rights.
Israel lacks a written constitution and laws specifically defining judicial review. Instead, it relies on a series of "basic laws," which the Supreme Court has increasingly used to determine constitutionality over the past three decades. The Court's ruling emphasizes the existence of unwritten principles and core democratic values that place limitations on the powers of the Parliament.
According to Barak Medina, a law professor at Hebrew University, the decision signifies that the Court recognizes the presence of fundamental democratic principles that restrict parliamentary powers.