The Israeli High Court of Justice on Wednesday questioned whether current rules adequately protect lawyers from harassment within courthouses, particularly those representing Palestinians and human rights organizations. The justices expressed concern over the lack of clear guidelines for security personnel on what behavior should be prevented and how these rules are conveyed to the public.
The case centers on complaints from attorneys who say they are followed through the Supreme Court corridors by right-wing activists, filmed at close range, and accused of supporting terrorism. The petitioners argue that preventing only physical attacks is insufficient; lawyers require the ability to prepare for hearings, consult confidentially with clients, and carry out their duties without intimidation.
Justices Dafna Barak-Erez, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Yehiel Kasher scrutinized the existing protections, including proposals for designated areas where lawyers could work without interference. However, the court did not issue a ruling during the hearing and indicated a decision would be forthcoming.
The Courts Administration rejected calls for judicial intervention, maintaining that its security policy did not warrant such measures. Ahead of the hearing, it submitted an updated response asserting that security protocols had been strengthened and that guards receive explicit instructions to intervene against conduct such as filming intended to harass or intimidate lawyers.
State attorney Hadas Eran echoed this position during the hearing, condemning any interference with legal professionals and emphasizing that courthouses are not venues for demonstrations. Eran said that guards undergo training and briefings and are expected to exercise judgment based on circumstances.
The justices questioned whether these instructions were sufficiently detailed. Barak-Erez asked if a June 2023 meeting summary—cited as the basis for current rules—constituted a comprehensive directive and inquired about plans for further clarification. Canfy-Steinitz remarked that the guidance appeared too general, questioning whether it equipped guards to act decisively in specific situations.
Barak-Erez also sought information on how many individuals had been removed from courthouses in the past year for disturbing order, and raised concerns about how the public is expected to comply with restrictions that are not clearly communicated. An ongoing dispute cited by the petitioners involved confrontations during hearings addressing humanitarian aid to Gaza, prison conditions, punitive home demolitions, and other contested policies.
Among the serious incidents outlined was an event on March 30, 2026, related to a hearing on the return of displaced Palestinians to refugee camps in the northern West Bank. Petitioners reported that an activist followed lawyers after they exited the courtroom and physically pushed Oded Feller, an attorney with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), as he attempted to enter another courtroom. Feller supported this account with an affidavit, and footage of the encounter was submitted to court officials.
Other reported incidents include a hearing on October 29, 2025, concerning Red Cross visits to detention facilities, after which lawyers and association staff were escorted out by court security and had to wait for transportation while avoiding hostile crowds. Petitioners argue such occurrences illustrate the inadequacy of policies that allow those harassing lawyers to move freely, forcing legal representatives to retreat.
Complaints of this nature have been raised since 2020. Following a June 2023 meeting, instructions were issued to treat intrusion on lawyers’ personal space, as well as verbal abuse and incitement, as disturbances warranting intervention. The administration also mandated guards to maintain a three-meter distance to protect lawyers.
In its December 2024 response, the Courts Administration emphasized the need to balance lawyer safety with freedom of expression and public access, noting the availability of a Bar Association room for private work. An update submitted recently highlighted additional training, advance planning for sensitive hearings, and inspections reporting no deviations from policy. An internal directive clarifying responsibilities remains under review.
The administration further cited a December 2025 Supreme Court ruling permitting advance restrictions on courtroom attendance where significant disruptions are expected, with alternatives such as live-streaming or separate screenings.
The hearing concluded without resolution on whether current instructions sufficiently safeguard lawyers, if clearer written rules are needed, or whether dedicated courthouse areas should be established to enable attorneys to work free from interference.