Israel’s cabinet has rejected the authority of the outgoing Second Authority Council, deepening a dispute over who holds legal control over the body responsible for regulating commercial television and radio broadcasting. The move intensifies tensions between the government and the High Court of Justice but has not yet escalated into a full constitutional crisis.

At the heart of the disagreement are two competing councils overseeing the Second Authority. The government appointed a new council in March, but the High Court has allowed the previous council to remain in operation while it evaluates petitions challenging the legality of the government’s appointments. Media organizations and public-interest groups have argued that the new appointments were politically motivated, prompting the court to suspend the new council’s powers temporarily.

Among the decisions pending before the outgoing council is the potential approval of the sale of Reshet 13, operator of Channel 13, to the Merit Spread Foundation. The foundation is backed by a group of technology entrepreneurs led by Assaf Rappaport, co-founder of Wiz.

Following several resignations from the outgoing council—many of whose members announced intentions to join the government-appointed replacement—the High Court issued an interim ruling on June 17. The justices determined that, for the purposes of continuing operations, the departing members should not be counted when assessing whether the council still met the statutory quorum. This allowed the outgoing council to maintain its functions pending the court’s final decision.

In response, the cabinet, acting on recommendations from Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, declared it would not recognize decisions or appointments made by a council it considers to lack the required legal membership threshold. Karhi emphasized that the two-thirds membership rule is a strict legal requirement rather than a guideline, while Levin maintained that the court cannot grant powers that the law does not explicitly authorize.

Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs clarified that the cabinet’s statement does not instruct officials to defy court orders but expresses the government’s intention to challenge the ruling through legal channels. Conversely, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara criticized the cabinet’s declaration as a serious attempt to undermine judicial authority and destabilize confidence in the regulatory framework.

Legal analysts characterize the cabinet’s declaration as a significant escalation, though not yet constituting a constitutional breakdown in which a government body openly defies a definitive court order. Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, noted that while the conflict edges closer to such a rupture, it has not crossed that threshold. He also highlighted the broader context of ongoing institutional tensions in Israel, including disputes over Supreme Court appointments and the role of judicial oversight.

Israel’s lack of a formal written constitution leaves its constitutional balance dependent on Basic Laws subject to ordinary legislative changes, court interpretations, and evolving political customs. This structure affords considerable latitude for legal and political disputes over authority among branches of government.

A decisive constitutional crisis would emerge if the government refused to comply with a final court order that mandates a specific action, such as invalidating an appointment or holding a new vote. To date, the High Court’s order has allowed the outgoing Second Authority Council to operate temporarily without compelling the government to take a designated action.

The current dispute unfolds against a backdrop of political volatility as Israel approaches elections scheduled by late October. Although not related to election administration, the controversy places commercial media regulation and judicial authority in sharp focus during a charged political climate.

Experts urge the need for clearer constitutional frameworks to prevent recurrent institutional conflicts. Suggestions include enacting a Basic Law that imposes more stringent requirements for passing or amending legislation and codifying protections for fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and equality.

Meanwhile, the outgoing council continues to function under the court’s interim order. The High Court has yet to issue a final ruling on the legality of the government’s March appointments.