The High Court of Justice froze on Thursday the provisions allowing the government to begin implementing a law restructuring the Police Investigation Department, blocking appointments to the department’s new leadership and work on its separate budget while challenges to the law remain pending.
Court President Isaac Amit and Justice Dafna Barak-Erez issued the interim order in a 2-1 decision. Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg dissented.
The ruling does not strike down the law or decide whether it is valid; a hearing on three petitions seeking its cancellation is scheduled for December 28, two months after the October 27 election.
For now, the order prevents the Justice Ministry from establishing the leadership structure intended to oversee the transition to the new department.
The court suspended four provisions governing the appointment of the PID director, the five-member committee that selects the director, a new official responsible for resolving disputes involving the department, and its separate budget.
Those were the only provisions that took effect immediately when the law was published on June 15. Most of the overhaul is scheduled to come into force eight months after publication, in February 2027, with the possibility of a four-month postponement.
The order therefore does not formally suspend every section of the law. In practice, however, it stops the steps that can currently be taken to establish the new department and prepare it to begin operating.
Amit and Barak-Erez said they had considered the positions of the petitioners and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, who supported an interim order because of the immediate consequences for the PID and the election period.
They also considered the opposing positions of the Knesset and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who emphasized the status of legislation enacted by the Knesset.
Knesset approves law after proposal by Likud MK
The Knesset approved the law on June 11 by 43 votes to 39. Proposed by Likud MK Moshe Saada and promoted by Levin, it would separate the PID, which investigates police misconduct, from the State Attorney’s Office and reconstitute it as an independent unit within the Justice Ministry.
Under the new structure, the department’s director would receive powers currently held by the attorney-general, state attorney and district prosecutors in criminal cases handled by the PID. The department would retain responsibility for both investigating suspected criminal offenses by police officers and prosecuting cases arising from those investigations.
The law would also create a coordinator for police investigations, who would decide appeals against certain decisions to close cases and resolve disputes between the PID and other investigative or prosecutorial bodies. In some circumstances, the coordinator could transfer a case from the department to another authority or from another authority to the PID.
The department would remain subject to the general directives of the attorney-general and state attorney, but authority currently exercised by officials outside the department would be transferred internally.
Supporters of the law argue that the PID’s current position within the prosecution creates an inherent conflict of interest because police and prosecutors work closely together in other criminal cases. Saada and Levin have presented the separation as a way to strengthen the department’s independence and address deficiencies identified in previous reports on its work.
New PID appointment system opens possibility for political influence, detractors say
The petitioners and Baharav-Miara argue that the new appointment system would instead expose criminal law enforcement to political influence.
Baharav-Miara told the court that Levin or the Justice Ministry director-general had direct or substantial involvement in the selection of three of the five members of the appointments committee. She argued that advancing long-term appointments through that structure during an election period could have a chilling effect on police officers, investigators and prosecutors.
Levin maintained in his court filings that the appointment process should proceed despite the election. The law expressly required the committee to be formed within one month and instructed it to appoint the department’s director and coordinator as soon as possible, he argued.
The court had already barred new steps in the appointment process on August 23 while it considered whether to issue a broader interim order.
Levin sharply criticized Thursday’s decision, accusing a “handful” of Supreme Court justices of seeking to protect what he called a failed institution.
The court’s December hearing will address the underlying challenges to the law. Until then, the existing PID structure remains in place and the government cannot advance the appointments or budget arrangements covered by Thursday’s order.