In Israel’s most consequential institutional disputes of the past year, the same three names repeatedly appeared: Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, and his deputy, Noam Sohlberg.
They do not always agree or come from the same judicial school. But together they became the most public faces of a justice system asked where government authority ends and whether the institutions answering that question can function amid political pressure.
That shared position was clearest in the government’s attempt to dismiss Baharav-Miara. The cabinet voted unanimously in August 2025 to remove her, arguing that profound and prolonged disagreements had made cooperation impossible. Sohlberg temporarily blocked the dismissal while the court reviewed it.
In December, a seven-justice panel unanimously invalidated both the new dismissal mechanism and the decision based upon it. Amit authored the ruling, which found serious defects in the government’s decision to bypass the public-professional committee traditionally involved in appointing and dismissing attorneys-general.
Baharav-Miara remained in office and at the center of nearly every major dispute between the government and the legal system.
Her office backed stronger enforcement against haredi (ultra-Orthodox) draft evaders, supported an independent state commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding October 7, challenged attempts to restructure the Justice Ministry’s Police Investigation Department, and warned against weakening government legal advisers. She also argued that an outgoing government must exercise restraint over senior appointments and other decisions that could bind its successor.
The use of outside lawyers became one measure of the breakdown, although such cases remained the exception rather than the rule. A July Israel Democracy Institute review identified 42 requests for separate representation since the government took office, 33 of which Baharav-Miara approved. By comparison, in 2023 alone, the prosecution completed its handling of approximately 1,380 High Court petitions, with the government represented by the legal-advisory system in many hundreds of non-security cases. The significance of the 42 disputes lay less in their number than in their subject matter: Many concerned constitutional questions, the division of power between state institutions, and senior appointments.
Baharav-Miara’s critics see an unelected official obstructing policies chosen by voters. Her office and supporters say the attorney-general advises the government but cannot defend actions deemed unlawful.
Yitzhak Amit
Justice Minister Yariv Levin refused to recognize Amit’s presidency, arguing that his selection was invalid and declining to work with him on appointments requiring joint approval. In June, the High Court ordered Levin to cooperate with Amit.
Vacancies mounted across the courts, delaying proceedings and harming public service. Once the Judicial Selection Committee resumed broader work, it selected 94 judges and registrars over two rounds in late June and early July.
Amit also placed the challenge to the government’s overhaul of the Judicial Selection Committee before all 11 sitting justices, in a case that may determine who controls future judicial appointments.
He faced personal allegations and severe political rhetoric. The judicial complaints commissioner dismissed all but one complaint against him, finding a failure to disclose a potential conflict but no improper intent, and recommended no further action. Levin nevertheless demanded Amit’s resignation and sought disciplinary proceedings, which Baharav-Miara said lacked legal validity. Amit repeatedly warned that incitement and false information were threatening judicial independence and judges’ safety.
Noam Sohlberg
Sohlberg, widely identified with the court’s conservative wing, occupied a sensitive place in the confrontation. He joined Amit in pressing Levin to fill judicial vacancies while writing consequential decisions of his own.
Most significantly, he authored the November ruling requiring criminal and economic enforcement against haredi draft evaders. When the government failed to implement it, the panel he led imposed deadlines for considering the removal of benefits and other enforcement measures.
On June 3, extremist haredi protesters descended on Sohlberg’s home in Alon Shvut. They smashed windows, damaged his car, and attempted to enter the house. Police arrested 62 people, and four men were later indicted. The violence transformed a dispute over court authority into a direct threat against a judge and his family.
Sohlberg also assumed responsibility for petitions seeking an October 7 state commission after Amit stepped aside because the chief justice would appoint its members. Now, as chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Sohlberg will oversee election rules and integrity ahead of the October 27 vote.
The three exercised their authority differently. Baharav-Miara was the government’s internal legal constraint; Amit, the judiciary’s institutional defender; and Sohlberg, a conservative jurist repeatedly placed at the center of disputes cutting across Israel’s political and social divisions. Their influence lay not only in their decisions but also in the institutions they are charged with holding together.