Justice Minister Yariv Levin, a member of the ruling Likud party, expressed his frustration on Sunday regarding his working relationship with Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, stating that it had become exceedingly challenging. However, he noted that firing her would pose significant difficulties and was not currently under consideration.
Levin’s comments came in response to Baharav-Miara’s recent call for the High Court of Justice to invalidate a government law that restricts judicial review—a move that represents an unprecedented challenge to the court’s stance on revisions to Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws.
The attorney general has declined to support the government’s position on this legislation, prompting the government to seek independent legal counsel to present its case in the High Court.
Levin, in an interview with the Kan public broadcaster, remarked, “It’s very difficult and almost impossible to work like this. This is not how the attorney general is supposed to act.” Nonetheless, he emphasized that removing her from her position would be a complex and currently non-priority task.
Levin stressed the role of the attorney general in representing and assisting the government, emphasizing the need for integrity in this role.
Regarding the Judicial Selection Committee, which Levin seeks to reform significantly, he mentioned that he would convene it when it had suitable members.
Tensions between Levin and Baharav-Miara have been ongoing. The attorney general recently approved Levin’s request to use independent legal counsel in an upcoming High Court of Justice hearing related to his refusal to convene the Judicial Selection Committee. She has indicated that she disagrees with Levin’s position on the matter.
The attorney general and her team typically serve as the official legal advisors to the government and its ministers in legal proceedings. If the attorney general opposes the government’s position and refuses to defend it in court, the relevant minister can request independent counsel, though the attorney general can reject the request.
Baharav-Miara’s submission to the court emphasized the importance of the “reasonableness” standard in evaluating government actions and decisions, asserting that its removal would undermine Israel’s democratic identity and checks and balances system.
The High Court has never before invalidated a Basic Law or an amendment to such a law, but it has asserted its right to review such legislation on multiple occasions when they violate Israel’s democratic character or abuse legislative authority.
Baharav-Miara argued that the “reasonableness limitation law” violated these principles and should be struck down.
This legislation, an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, was passed by the Knesset in July and prohibits the High Court from using the “reasonableness” standard to annul government and ministerial decisions deemed unreasonable. Critics argue that this law could harm the independence of key law enforcement officials, the legitimacy of elections, and individual rights.
The attorney general’s submission outlined how the “reasonableness” standard plays a crucial role in reviewing appointments and dismissals of senior law enforcement officials and in ensuring fair elections during an election period. She argued that without this standard, interim governments could misuse resources and undermine fair elections.
Baharav-Miara acknowledged the complexity of striking down a Basic Law but maintained that the legislation violated fundamental principles of Israel’s democratic identity and should be invalidated, especially when considered in the context of the government’s broader judicial overhaul agenda.
She contended that this law, by limiting judicial review, undermined checks and balances and abused constituent power, granting additional authority to the government while reducing the court’s oversight capabilities.