Israeli government, judiciary on collision course after Supreme Court president selection
Justice Minister Yariv Levin refuses to recognize Isaac Amit as chief justice

AMIR COHEN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin arrives to a cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem on August 20, 2023.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin refused to recognize Supreme Court Justice Isaac Amit as chief justice after the selection committee chose Amit on Sunday following a court order, potentially sparking a crisis in Israel’s judiciary once again.
Amit was selected to be Supreme Court president after serving in the role in an interim capacity for the past four months and after the court went an unprecedented 16 months without a president. Levin refused to hold a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee, over the refusal by Amit and like-minded committee members to support Levin’s conservative candidates for Supreme Court justices and president of the court. The Supreme Court in its capacity as the High Court of Justice ordered Levin to hold the vote on Jan. 16th.
The court then allowed the vote to be postponed to Sunday amid allegations of misconduct against Amit. The judge failed to report numerous conflicts of interests, such as presiding over cases involving the Tel Aviv municipality, which opened proceedings against him and his brother over a property they own that the city declared a public danger.
Israeli Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Meara and Israeli Police declined to open investigations against Amit, arguing that these are ethical and not criminal matters.
Levin sought to postpone Amit’s selection again in light of the new allegations, and he and other coalition representatives boycotted the Judicial Selection Committee meeting in protest when the court would not allow further delays. The committee has never before held a vote without the justice minister, its chairman, taking part, according to legal experts.
The committee reviewed the allegations against the judge and questioned him in a five-hour hearing and decided to go ahead with his selection. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg was elected to serve as Amit’s deputy.
Immediately after, Levin “announce[d] unambiguously that I do not recognize Justice Isaac Amit as head of the Supreme Court and the processes in which he was ‘elected’ are illegitimate to their core and illegal,” he wrote in a letter to Israel Courts Administration director Judge Tzahi Ouziel.
Guy Luria, a research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, wrote after Levin’s announcement that “cooperation between the justice minister and the Supreme Court president is necessary for the proper function of the judicial branch.”
Levin’s refusal to meet with Amit, after he would not meet with his predecessor Justice Uzi Fogelman for many months, has held up judicial appointments at all levels, including the Supreme Court, which now has 12 justices and three vacancies.
In addition, Luria argued, Levin’s actions could weaken the independence of the judiciary.
Levin was the driving force behind the government’s 2023 judicial reform efforts, which were deeply controversial in Israel and sparked protests across the country. He stopped advancing the core elements of the reform when the wars in Gaza and Lebanon began, but continued to obstruct the selection of new judges to the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar — who supports reforming the judiciary but opposed Levin’s far-reaching proposal — put forward a new plan. The more moderate proposal was developed with help from two fathers of sons killed in the war, former Cabinet minister Yizhar Shay, who ran in former Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s party, and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Dedi Simchi, who has ties to Likud.
The new proposal would remove the two Bar Association representatives from the nine-member Judicial Selection Committee and replace them with experienced lawyers, one selected by the coalition and one by the opposition, while keeping the three Supreme Court justices on the panel in place. The Bar Association is usually aligned with the Supreme Court justices in their votes in the committee. Consecutive Bar Association chairmen have had to resign in recent years amid sordid sex and corruption scandals, supporting judicial appointments in exchange for sexual favors.
The new judicial reform proposal would not only require opposition representation on the Judicial Selection Committee — something that is currently customary but has not always been upheld — but requires agreement between the opposition and coalition on its selections. In a major change from past practice, the reform would eliminate the committee’s Supreme Court justices’ veto power over who will join them on the bench.
Levin also said that the process of passing Israel’s Basic Laws, meant to be building blocks of an eventual constitution, would be more rigorous, without giving details. Those laws would not be subject to judicial review unless they are related to participation in elections.
In addition, Levin plans to abolish the seniority system for choosing a Supreme Court president.
Gantz criticized the compromise between Sa’ar and Levin, within the coalition, as “not a framework of national consensus.”
At an Israel Democracy Institute conference earlier this month, critics of the plan focused on the replacement of Bar Association representatives with lawyers selected by lawmakers, arguing that this would politicize the panel.
Former Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish said that “changing the system to political rather than professional appointments … is absolutely unacceptable — and that is exactly what this proposal entails.”
Shay pushed back against that argument, saying that it is “offensive [and] disrespectful toward the thousands of talented and dedicated individuals who were appointed by politicians in the past … Think about the current attorney general — does she act as if she’s afraid someone might dismiss her? Consider the IDF chief of staff, the head of the Mossad, and the head of the Shin Bet, all appointed by politicians.”
“Judges,” Shay argued, “have an advantage. They are not only loyal to the state and the law, but they also cannot be fired.”
Simchi said they were motivated to come up with a plan in order to unite Israelis.
“Yizhar and I knew we’d face all this backlash … but we’re willing to serve as a bridge and let both sides walk over us and meet in the middle,” he said. “Otherwise, our sons will have died in vain. This country is falling apart from within. Now is the time for everyone to show courage, strength and boldness. Compromise is for the strong.”