Israel’s Supreme Court on Monday blocked a controversial law that would limit its own powers. International news agencies report this. Eight of the fifteen judges voted against the law, which they said “causes serious and unprecedented damage to Israel’s characteristics as a democratic state.”
This concerns the power of the Supreme Court to test decisions of parliament and the government against the so-called ‘principle of reasonableness’. Based on that principle, the highest courts can block a decision if they believe it is not well-considered. Netanyahu’s government wants the court to no longer be able to apply that power to government decisions. Opponents believe that this restriction gives the government too much power.
These and other proposals sparked large anti-government demonstrations in Israel earlier this year. With the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7 and the subsequent war in Gaza, protests against the reforms subsided.
Netanyahu’s law is a change to Israel’s Basic Law, similar to a constitution. It is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to block such a law, and not all justices agreed Monday that they could do so.
Separation of powers
Likud, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s party, says, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the Supreme Court’s decision is “at odds with the people’s call for unity, especially in times of war.”
The Israeli Minister of Justice Yariv Levin writes on Telegram: “In the judgment, the judges take over all powers that are distributed evenly between the three powers in a democratic regime.” According to Levin, the ruling will “not discourage” his government. It is not yet clear whether and how the government wants to revive the reform.
One of the groups that called on the Supreme Court to look into the law celebrates the verdict on X. “Government and ministers who tried to exempt themselves from the rule of law have been told that there are judges in Jerusalem. That there is democracy. That there is a separation of powers.”
Also read
Israeli Court considers Netanyahu’s controversial legal reform: what is at stake?