The High Court of Justice on Sunday heard arguments against the law changing the composition and voting rules of the Judicial Selection Committee, with an expanded bench of all 11 sitting Supreme Court justices repeatedly questioning whether the overhaul would place judicial appointments under political control.
The hearing concerns six consolidated petitions seeking to strike down the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary and the Courts Law, passed by the Knesset in March 2025 and due to take effect only in the next Knesset.
The court had already issued a conditional order, shifting the burden to the Knesset and government to explain why the law should remain in force.
At the center of the case is whether the change amounts to an unconstitutional constitutional amendment: a Basic Law change that, petitioners and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara argue, so severely harms judicial independence and the separation of powers that it cannot stand.
Under the previous arrangement, the nine-member committee included three Supreme Court justices, two Israel Bar Association representatives, two ministers, including the justice minister, and two MKs.
The new law removes the Bar Association representatives and replaces them with two public representatives who are lawyers qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, one selected by the coalition and one by the opposition. The result, according to the petitioners, is an effective political majority of six members, compared with three judges.
It also changes the appointment rules. Supreme Court appointments would no longer require the previous seven-member supermajority. Instead, appointments could be made with agreement between coalition and opposition representatives, without the support of any of the judges on the committee.
Amit warns that these decisions could change the 'character of the judiciary'
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit opened the hearing by saying the legislation had made a significant change to the way judges are selected after decades under the previous arrangement. He urged the parties to focus on the central constitutional question: whether the amendment violates the core democratic principle of an independent judiciary.
Amit warned that the effect of the amendment could not be assessed only over the next two or three years.
“Within a year of the next Knesset being elected, two judges could be selected with ‘chosen by the coalition’ and ‘chosen by the opposition’ written on their foreheads,” Amit said. “Over 15 years, the benches of the Supreme Court will be filled by judges selected only by political actors.”
He warned that a judge selected through such a process could later become Supreme Court president or deputy president, changing the character of the judiciary over time.
“Will there be a political chip implanted in every judge who is selected?” Amit asked. “Does that not harm the democratic system Israel has known for nearly 80 years?”
Justice Dafna Barak-Erez said the law was already influencing the current situation, even before it enters into force.
“Anyone with eyes in their head can understand: let us wait a little longer, in a few months the law will come into force, so why appoint Supreme Court justices now?” she said. “This is a reality that is already being shaped today.”
Her comments came against the background of the continuing dispute over the convening of the existing Judicial Selection Committee and judicial vacancies throughout the court system.
Justice Alex Stein raised concerns that a district court judge seeking promotion to the Supreme Court could face incentives to appeal to political decision-makers.
“If I look 10 years ahead, what will a district court judge who wants to reach the Supreme Court have to do?” Stein asked. “Find favor in the eyes of politicians, write judgments that politicians like.”
Justice Yechiel Kasher similarly questioned what prospects a highly qualified judge with no identifiable political affiliation would have under the new model.
“What are the chances of an excellent, diligent district court judge whose political direction no one knows being selected?” Kasher asked. “The answer is zero.”
Justice Yael Willner focused on the law’s deadlock-breaking mechanism, under which coalition and opposition representatives would each submit candidates after a prolonged failure to appoint Supreme Court justices.
She warned that the mechanism could result in Supreme Court judges being selected without a vote of the full committee, based instead on political representatives’ choices.
Israel Bar Association is subject to removal from committee
The justices also challenged the decision to remove the Israel Bar Association from the committee.
Attorney Yitzhak Bart, representing the Knesset’s legal counsel, argued that the reform followed longstanding criticism that elected officials lacked sufficient influence over judicial appointments, including criticism over the perceived ideological homogeneity of the judiciary and the role of the Bar Association.
Barak-Erez responded that alleged conflicts of interest involving Bar Association representatives could have been addressed through narrower measures rather than their complete removal.
“This is a radical solution,” she said.
Justice Ofer Grosskopf questioned why allegations of wrongdoing involving the Bar Association should lead to removing its representatives from the committee, noting that public corruption allegations against politicians had also been proven in court.
Amit added that former Bar Association head Efi Nave’s influence in the committee had depended on political actors. “Someone else could reach the opposite conclusion,” he said, “that perhaps the two politicians should be removed from the committee.”
The government, represented separately by Dr. Yaakov Ben-Shemesh, argued that political participation in judicial appointments does not inherently undermine professionalism or judicial independence.
Ben-Shemesh said politicians are elected public representatives and that it should not be assumed they lack an interest in appointing qualified judges.
The Knesset and government have also argued that the petitions are premature because the amendment will apply only from the next Knesset, and that the court lacks authority to invalidate a Basic Law.
Baharav-Miara, however, has supported the petitions, arguing that the amendment reverses the longstanding balance between professional and political members of the committee and creates incentives that could influence both judicial candidates and sitting judges.
The hearing was briefly disrupted when Likud MK Tally Gotliv interrupted from the audience. After repeated warnings, Amit ordered court security to remove her from the hall.