High Court orders Justice Minister Levin to convene Judicial Selection Committee and appoint new court president

Both court and justice minister accuse each other of acting ‘contrary to the law’

Read this article in:

Israel’s High Court of Justice ruled unanimously on Sunday that Justice Minister Yariv Levin must convene the Judicial Selection Committee and elect a president to the Supreme Court within 14 days.

Levin has refused to convene the Judicial Selection Committee since last year, after the coalition failed to appoint its preferred candidates to the committee and after some of its judicial reforms were struck down by the High Court.

He persisted in this refusal despite the mandatory retirement of previous Supreme Court President Esther Hayut in October 2023.

The court has been without an appointed president ever since.

Justice Uzi Vogelman, the most senior justice in the court, has been the acting court president in the interim. According to the accepted tradition, Justice Isaac Amit, the next most senior justice, would have been appointed as the new court president since Vogelman also faces mandatory retirement this fall.

Levin argued that as the justice minister and chair of the committee, he has unlimited discretion to convene the panel, as he determines.

He has also sought to dispose of the current seniority system, having each new court president appointed by the Judicial Selection Committee. Part of the judicial reforms proposed by Levin include restructuring the committee to give the ruling coalition more influence in the appointment of justices.

The court, rejecting Levin’s position regarding convening the committee, said the justice minister is attempting to assume veto power over the selection of the court president, a power not explicitly given by the Basic Law: The Judiciary.

The High Court gave Levin two weeks from Sunday to publish the names of the candidates for the presidency of the Supreme Court in the Official Gazette.

Levin recently proposed a compromise in which his preferred candidate for court president, conservative Justice Yosef Elron, would be appointed for a one-year term before reaching mandatory retirement. Alternatively, he suggested appointing Amit as president and filling the remaining vacancy with one of two very conservative academics selected to the remaining empty chair in the court.

Vogelman reportedly opposes the second option, as neither of the two academics has ever served as a judge, which, in his opinion, disqualifies them from appointment to the High Court of Justice.

In their ruling, the justices said the purpose of the law is to fill the position to allow proper functioning of the High Court.

“Severe harm and damage were being caused, as a result of the absence of this appointment, to the public interest and the functioning of the court, the judicial authority, and the law enforcement system,” wrote Justice Yael Wilner, explaining the court’s decision.

Levin called the court’s ruling “a forceful takeover of the Judicial Selection Committee.”

“The decree issued a short time ago, which has no parallel in any Western democracy, surprised no one. The order, which is explicitly contrary to the law and was issued with a serious conflict of interest, constitutes a forceful takeover of the Judicial Selection Committee and the illegal taking of the minister's powers,” Levin said.

Both Levin and the High Court accuse each other of violating the Basic Law: The Judiciary regarding the appointment of justices.

In Israel, the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court is governed by the Basic Law: The Judiciary.

The president of the Supreme Court is appointed by the president of Israel, based on the recommendation of the Judicial Selection Committee.

This committee includes nine members: three Supreme Court judges (including the current president of the Supreme Court), two Cabinet ministers (one being the justice minister), two Knesset members, and two representatives from the Israel Bar Association.

Traditionally, the appointment follows a seniority system, where the longest-serving judge is selected when the outgoing president’s term ends. This practice is a point of contention, with Levin attempting to change it as part of the judicial reform legislation last year.

The tenure of the Supreme Court president is limited to a seven-year period and there is no possibility of reappointment. Additionally, High Court justices must retire at the age of 70.