Proposals to radically adjust Israel’s legal and judicial landscape unveiled by Justice Minister Yariv Levin on January 5 temporarily fomented deep social discord, with government and opposition politicians exchanging incendiary accusations and the rapid status quo of a fervent protest movement.
Proponents say the sweeping adjustments are a corrective to an overly activist judiciary that undermines the will of the people, while critics, adding many jurists and jurists, counter that the drastic reform timeline would exhaust Israel’s democracy, leaving the country powerless over the legislature. .
As the streets seem to be near the boiling point of this polarizing issue, possibly a more basic risk will await the country as this unfolds. The government’s efforts to seriously limit judicial oversight of the Knesset law and executive action may also lead to a constitutional crisis: a scenario in which the government and the Supreme Court come into direct conflict.
Such a crash is safe, but experts say the ingredients are there.
And the consequences of such may have long-term implications for the State of Israel, depending on how those branches of government respond to each other’s movements.
If the court intervened in law to enact the legal adjustments and the government forgot about such a decision, confidence in the rule of law in Israel, both locally and internationally, would be particularly undermined, while the court itself could be fatally weakened.
At the same time, the intervention of judicial and state bodies to thwart measures can further aggravate discord, with unpredictable consequences for the stability of society.
In his announcement in early January, Levin defined what he called the first step in revising the legal and judicial formula: a highly questionable adjustment program that, if passed, would have far-reaching consequences for Israel’s governing formula.
The plans come with a serious restriction on the High Court’s ability to overturn legislation and government decisions; the adoption of a “nevertheless clause” allowing the Knesset to re-legislate such legislation; give the government about the variety of passing judgments; prevent the court from employing a “reasonableness” check against which to rule on laws and government decisions; and allowing ministers to appoint their own legal advisers rather than through advisers operating under the aegis of the Justice Department.
One of the reforms that most concerns lawyers and the Liberal Democrat political bloc is the proposal to limit the ability of the High Court to repeal laws for violating the Basic Laws, and allow the Knesset to annul such a ruling if the court succeeds in overturning a law. law.
Levin’s proposal would require a panel of the court’s 15 justices and a “special majority” of 12 of them to strike down the Knesset legislation, if a petitioner challenges one in the High Court.
Right-wing politicians argue that such a law is mandatory because of what they claim is the partisan nature of the judiciary. Rather than being judicious with unlimited governmental power, many on the right see the High Court as a politicized framework capable of obstructing democratically elected politicians, even if they have not been elected.
Meanwhile, the court and its supporters see the court as playing a key role in determining whether the new law is consistent with the closest thing to an Israeli constitution: a set of thirteen basic laws that deal with the basic facets of the state and its government. .
The court’s strength to take down has never been explicitly stated in anyArray
But the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty passed by the Knesset in 1992 establishes a series of basic rights, adding the preservation of life, liberty, privacy and rights of property.
The law also refers to the Declaration of Independence as a source of constitutional values for the country, and states that those values come with the State of Israel as “a Jewish and democratic state. “
The Basic Law adds that the rights enshrined therein are violated.
In a landmark 1995 resolution in Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal Cooperative Village, then-Chief Justice Aharon Barak, supported by seven other justices, argued that the Basic Laws were passed by the Knesset in its capacity as a constituent assembly, and can simply be regarded as impressive to normal legislation, giving them quasi-constitutional status.
The ruling set a precedent for the court to exercise judicial review of Knesset legislation. Since then, 22 laws and government resolutions have been annulled or annulled, regularly for violation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. The resolutions have fueled specific frustration on the right, making resignation a number one political purpose for Likud figures, adding Levin, the party of devout Zionism and ultra-Orthodox parties.
The new government turns out to be in a position to continue with these reforms through the adoption of a new basic law: Legislation.
It is important to note that another law will explicitly state that the High Court of Justice has no judicial review of the Basic Laws of the Knesset, thus protecting the clause itself of judicial review.
It is this particular stipulation that can galvanize a direct confrontation between the government’s attempts to dismantle the court through the law and the court’s imaginable reluctance to settle for such a law as valid.
Legislation enacting those reforms, once passed, will almost inevitably be the subject of petitions to the High Court through organizations claiming them as unconstitutional and in violation of Israel’s fundamental values as a Jewish and democratic state.
Assuming the court hears those challenges, as it has done with petitions opposing other new Basic Laws and amendments to existing ones, Israel will most likely stand on the path to a potentially serious constitutional crisis.
If the High Court were to try to repeal legislation in which the Knesset claims that the judiciary has no power to intervene, democracy could suddenly become very messy.
The High Court has never annulled a Basic Law, but it has developed two doctrines that open up that possibility, according to Yaniv Roznai, an associate professor at Reichman University and in constitutional law.
The first considers the so-called abuse of constituent power, which can be used in cases where the Knesset enacts a new Basic Law or amends an existing law for an express and restricted purpose, such as revoking a time limit or assisting a specific person. .
Such bills, sometimes intended to circumvent a circumstantial political obstacle, cannot be promulgated on the constitutional point under the doctrine of abuse of constituent power.
In May 2021, the High Court ruled that an amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset, passed last year to give the embattled Likud-Blue and White coalition more time to resolve their political differences before the Knesset was dissolved, had been an abuse of parliamentary power. power.
Although the court technically refused to overturn the amendment, it strongly hinted that a similar long-term amendment might be found unconstitutional, indicating that the High Court is willing to weigh in on the Basic Laws in certain circumstances.
A similar case recently pending in judicial considerations 3 petitions opposed to the new Minister of Interior and Health, Aryeh Deri. One of the main claims of these petitions is that the law passed by the new government modifies the Basic Law: the government allows to be appointed minister despite its recent suspended criminal sentence constitutes an abuse of constituent power.
If the court were to find that this amendment does constitute an abuse of constituent powers, it would create additional tension in the already incredibly tense government-government rendezvous, given that the Minister of Justice expressly stated that the government seeking to prohibit the court from exercising judicial review of the Basic Laws.
It is believed that the court would interfere in this amendment to the Basic Law due to the very complicated scenario that such a resolution would create.
But the same case reaches some other imaginable clash between the judiciary and the government, as the petitioners also argue that Deri’s appointment deserves to be rescinded on the grounds that it is “unreasonable” in the extreme.
“Reasonableness” is a somewhat amorphous but commonly used term of judicial review through courts to determine whether administrative decisions are “reasonable” and have been made with due regard to all applicable factors.
Levin and other members of the right-wing devout bloc, however, argue that reasonableness provides the court with undue force to interfere in government decisions and policy projects and seek to overturn them.
Petitioners opposing Deri argue that his 1999 conviction for corruption and conviction in 2022 and suspended sentence on two counts of tax evasion make his ministerial appointment unreasonable.
A component of Levin’s reforms to restrict or completely prohibit the court’s use of reasonableness as an approach to judicial review. If the court decides that Deri’s appointment is unreasonable, it would create some other confrontational option between those branches of government and see new government boost legislative efforts to circumvent the court’s decision.
The doctrinal moment of intervention on grounds that has been retained by the court is that of an unconstitutional constitutional reform.
In the case of Israel, an unconstitutional constitutional amendment would be a new Basic Law or an amendment to an existing Basic Law that the court could violate other Basic Laws or, more fundamentally, violate the very essence of the state as such. established in other documents, perhaps adding the Declaration of Independence.
The choice of one between the High Court and the government over an unconstitutional constitutional amendment emerged after the Knesset passed the Basic Law: Israel – The Nation-State of the Jewish People in 2018.
This questionable law states, among other things, that only the rest of the Jewish people have a national right to self-determination in the State of Israel and that “Jewish colonization” is a “national value” that the state should inspire and promote. It sparked outrage and strong opposition within Israel, saying it undermined Israel’s democratic nature and threatened the equality of the country’s non-Jewish citizens.
In response to a wave of petitions, the High Court ruled 10-1 in July that the law can only be interpreted in a non-discriminatory manner and there was no need to overturn it.
According to her, the president of the court, Esther Hayut, wrote that since Israel only has an unfinished constitutional framework, courts simply cannot use the doctrine of “unconstitutional constitutional amendment” to overturn a Basic Law.
But his ruling also created a case in which the Knesset’s strength to legislate on fundamental legislation may be curtailed.
“In my approach, at this level of Israel’s constitutional effort, there is an incredibly narrow restriction that rests on the Knesset in its function as constituent authority and that it must not repeal through a Basic Law [which is] the law of Israel’s essence as a Jewish and democratic state,” Hayut wrote.
Although he refused to explicitly state whether the High Court would have the right to apply judicial review and annul a Basic Law that violated this “essence” of Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state, Hayut nevertheless left that option open.
Because the law of the geographical region violated Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state, such a resolution can be postponed until the “appropriate time,” he wrote.
Levin and other supporters of the government’s judicial reforms have already predicted such an eventuality, which is why one component of the reform package includes a component court ban in the Basic Laws.
But even in such circumstances, the court may simply reject the premise of such a law and argue that a Basic Law prohibiting judicial review of Basic Laws is unconstitutional, triggering a constitutional crisis.
Any invalidation of a Basic Law that seeks to limit the power of review of the law by the High Court would constitute a primary constitutional crisis and an unprecedented event among the branches of government.
Roznai said the High Court is unlikely to repeal an absolute Basic Law allowing an opt-out clause, noting that it would be difficult to convince the court that the waiver law itself denies the core of Israel’s democratic character.
The court’s intervention also depends on the precise design and scope of the waiver law, Roznai said.
The court is more likely to dismiss the case by implementing the so-called doctrine of adulthood, ruling that it is too early to say whether the exception clause will harm Israeli democracy.
Amir Fuchs, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, said the court will most likely go a long way toward a confrontation with the government and the Knesset, as the implications of such a move in direct defiance of the legislature and executive would create a full-blown constitutional crisis.
“If the government only uses the exception clause under very express conditions where rights are violated but not abolished, the court may not get involved,” Fuchs said.
But, if the Knesset began passing laws that not only violate basic rights, but seriously violate them, or repeal them altogether, then the court may simply have the right to review those laws, even if they come with a clause protecting them. of judicial interference.
“At this point, the court can simply say that such legislation is the raison d’être of the sunset clause, and that the law is designed only for an express problem, to abolish rights altogether,” Fuchs said.
Merely agreeing to hear a petition against a law containing an immunity clause would create serious tensions between the seat and the ruling majority and would itself constitute a form of constitutional crisis. Israelis glimpsed this when Levin in 2020, his tenure as speaker of the Knesset, threatened to defy the court if it struck down the geographic region’s legislation.
In fact, the Basic Law: Judiciary Amendment Bill released through Levin last week explicitly states that the court is prohibited from even holding hearings on petitions opposing the Basic Laws.
If the court were to heed a ruling rejecting the Knesset’s declaration of unlimited legislative powers, it would plunge Israel into a full-scale constitutional crisis between the judiciary and the legislature.
It is unlikely to be expected how such a scenario would play out with the new government’s proposed legal and judicial review, but Roznai noted that two such crises in fashionable times could be instructive.
In a landmark resolution in 1980, the Supreme Court of India issued the Minerva Mills resolution, holding that a segment of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India followed by the Parliament of India in 1976 removed all limitations on the amendment force of parliament and thus exceeded the limited limit of parliamentary force. force of amendment, and null and void.
The Indian government bowed to the court’s ruling and the resolution is now a detail of the supremacy of the Indian constitution over the legislature.
By contrast, when the Hungarian parliament passed a law in 2013 preventing the country’s constitutional court from overturning constitutional laws, the court refrained from annulling that law and bowed to the government’s will.
The resolution to force the legislature is one of the points that has noted that Hungary’s democracy has been downgraded in democratic ratings such as The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which now classifies the country as an “imperfect democracy. “
In Israel, Fuchs said the end results of a confrontation between judges and lawmakers would come down to how it spread across the floor and into the truth of life.
If, as an excessive example, the Knesset were to pass a law criminalizing media complaints against the government, the court overturned the law, and the Knesset re-legislated the law employing the exemption mechanism, the final results of this impasse would be decided. through what happens to the media that violate the law.
Would the police arrest offenders and the state attorney prosecute violators?If those agencies refused to act on the basis of the new law, would the government begin updating senior officials to assert their will?
Fuchs felt, however, that such an apocalyptic situation was “beyond the realm of imagination,” arguing that the High Court is relatively conservative and unlikely to meddle in such a situation.
And Roznai noted that mass constitutional conflagrations like those described above rarely occur in fashionable democracies.
Democratic erosion, he said, occurs gradually over the years, indicating the progressive decline of independence and judicial strength in intolerant democracies such as Hungary and Poland.
“It’s usually not a constitutional amendment that deals the fatal blow to democracy,” he said. “In most cases, this is a procedure through which other laws erode democracy. “
Do you depend on The Times of Israel for accurate and insightful facts about Israel and the Jewish world?If so, sign up for The Times of Israel community. For as little as $6 a month, you:
That’s why we introduced The Times of Israel ten years ago: to provide discerning readers like you with the must-have politics of Israel and the Jewish world.
So now we have a request. Unlike other means, we have not established a paywall. But because the journalism we do is expensive, we invite readers for whom The Times of Israel has become vital to help our paintings join The Times of Israel community.
For just $6 a month, you can help our quality journalism while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as access exclusive content only to members of The Times of Israel community.
Thank you, David Horovitz, founding editor of The Times of Israel.
&