Israel’s High Court of Justice convened all 11 sitting Supreme Court justices on Sunday to hear a series of petitions challenging a recent overhaul of the Judicial Selection Committee. The committee amendment, passed by the Knesset in March 2025 but set to take effect only after the upcoming Knesset election, has raised concerns about the potential politicization of judicial appointments.

At the center of the legal dispute is whether the amendment constitutes an “unconstitutional constitutional amendment” by infringing upon foundational democratic principles such as judicial independence, separation of powers, and the rule of law. The court had previously issued a conditional order requiring the government and Knesset to justify why the law should not be invalidated. Petitioners, including Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, contend the reform threatens the judiciary’s independence, while government representatives maintain that the challenge is premature since the law has not yet been implemented, and argue that increased political involvement does not necessarily undermine judicial professionalism.

The current Judicial Selection Committee comprises nine members, including three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two members of the Knesset, and two representatives from the Israel Bar Association (IBA). Under the existing system, Supreme Court appointments require a seven-member majority. The new law removes the IBA representatives, replacing them with two public members—lawyers qualified for the Supreme Court—each appointed by the government coalition and opposition. For Supreme Court appointments, the new requirement is a six-member majority including at least one coalition and one opposition representative but no need for support from sitting Supreme Court justices on the committee.

The law also introduces a mechanism to resolve deadlocks: if two Supreme Court vacancies remain unfilled for a year, each side would present candidates, and the opposing side must select from that list. Advocates of the reform argue it enhances political consensus and addresses criticisms that elected officials were previously underrepresented in judicial selections.

However, justices expressed deep reservations about the potential long-term effects. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit warned that the reform could lead to judges feeling compelled to gain political favor to advance their careers, potentially undermining impartiality. Justice Ruth Ronen noted that rules governing appointments inherently shape the conduct of judges and committee members alike. Justice Yechiel Kasher questioned the prospects for a highly qualified judge without clear political affiliations, suggesting such candidates might be sidelined. Justice Daphne Barak-Erez highlighted that the reform is already influencing current appointment dynamics, amid prolonged vacancies and the Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s previous delays in convening the committee.

The court also scrutinized the rationale for excluding the IBA from the committee. Government representatives cited longstanding concerns about the IBA’s role and alleged conflicts of interest, while justices questioned whether such issues justified a complete removal, especially as political figures have also faced corruption allegations. Justice Ofer Grosskopf emphasized the need to consider the balance between political and professional evaluation, cautioning that sidelining judicial members from Supreme Court appointments could overemphasize political considerations.

Critics, including opposition MKs, civil rights groups, and the IBA, warned that the law risks eroding public trust in the courts by making judges reliant on political actors for their appointments and promotions. Meanwhile, government attorneys argued that politicians have a legitimate role in public appointments and that the reform fosters broader political agreement rather than coalition dominance.

The hearing was briefly interrupted when Likud MK Tally Givot disrupted proceedings and was removed by security.

Following the hearing, Justice Minister Yariv Levin defended the reform, contending that it addresses problematic vetoes blocking qualified candidates and called on the Knesset to pass legislation declaring the High Court lacks authority to intervene in Basic Laws governing judicial appointments. Levin characterized President Amit’s concerns about politicization as reflective of the current system’s flaws rather than the proposed changes.

The High Court’s ruling on the petitions will clarify the balance between judicial independence and political oversight in Israel’s judicial appointment process amid ongoing debates about the country’s democratic framework.