The High Court conducted an extensive and historic hearing on Tuesday regarding petitions challenging a law that restricts judicial oversight. During the hearing, several justices questioned the government’s assertion that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to strike down quasi-constitutional Basic Laws. Tensions ran high during exchanges between the court and attorneys defending the “reasonableness” legislation.
One justice expressed concerns about the potential impact on Israel’s democracy, stating that “democracy dies in a series of small steps.” The coalition’s lawyer rejected Israel’s Declaration of Independence as a source of judicial authority, calling it a hastily endorsed document by unelected signatories.
However, the justices also resisted calls to annul the law outright, with court President Esther Hayut stating that only a “mortal blow” to democracy would justify voiding a Basic Law. Lawyers representing petitioners argued that the legislation and other government proposals aimed at overhauling the judiciary posed a significant threat to the court’s independence and the separation of powers.
The hearing, which lasted over 13 hours and featured an unprecedented panel of all 15 justices, focused on petitions against the law enacted in July. While a decision is not expected for weeks or possibly months, the court’s reactions and questions were closely watched for indications of the court’s direction and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
The hearing coincided with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s discussions with the opposition on a compromise regarding the judicial overhaul, which could lead to a softening of the existing legislation. Opposition leaders were skeptical of Netanyahu’s intentions and concerned that it might be a ploy to appease the court and Western observers without actual follow-through.
Throughout the session, both sides emphasized the unprecedented nature of the proceedings. Government attorneys argued that the court lacked the power to intervene in Basic Laws, while petitioners claimed that the legislation undermined Israel’s democratic character.
The hearing underscored the ongoing struggle over Israel’s proto-constitution, with petitioners arguing that the law violated democratic principles, and the government contending that the court should not interfere with legislation. The outcome remains uncertain, and the possibility of a constitutional clash looms if the government refuses to honor a court ruling against the law.
The hearing was highly significant in Israel’s history, as it marked the first time the High Court of Justice considered petitions to strike down a quasi-constitutional Basic Law. The outcome will have significant implications for the country’s democratic institutions and the ongoing debate over the balance of power between the government and the judiciary.