A voter’s guide to judicial reform: The moves parties are planning after the election

The judicial overhaul agenda pursued by the outgoing coalition was perhaps the most contentious and consequential policy agenda advanced by a government in Israel since the disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

The initial phase of the legislative program, which sought to weaken the Supreme Court and give the government control over judicial appointments, opened up a profound societal schism and was met with unprecedented opposition, as tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets in weekly protests.

Both sides of the political divide described the struggle over the powers of the judiciary and the legal system as an existential battle for the future of the country, and these arguments continue until today.

The coalition and its supporters insist that the reforms are necessary to enable the government to enact the agenda it was elected for without the interference of an unelected judiciary, while the opposition argues that the government’s overhaul agenda would strip away all restraints on executive and legislative power, and therefore endanger civil rights in the country and undermine Israel’s democratic regime.

Given the acute importance both sides of the political divide attribute to reforming, or preserving, Israel’s judicial and legal frameworks, it is somewhat surprising that there has been little serious discussion of the issue during the election campaign.

Neither of the two leading parties in the polls, Likud and Yashar, have published what policies they might pursue, and just two of the 13 parties expected to enter the Knesset have issued policy platforms on the issue of legal reforms — the ultranationalist Religious Zionism party and the left-wing Democrats.

The Times of Israel therefore reached out to all the major political parties asking them to detail their plans for legal reform in the next Knesset. Most major parties provided at least some details, with the notable exception of Likud, which refused all requests.

Judicious overhaul?

Although the first package of judicial overhaul legislation was initially frozen in mid-2023 due to the protest movement, and then stopped in its tracks by the Hamas terror onslaught on October 7 of that year, the architect of the program, Justice Minister Yariv Levin of Likud, slowly revived key aspects of the agenda in 2025.

In March 2025, the coalition succeeded in passing its flagship judicial overhaul law, which greatly increased political control over judicial appointments, including Supreme Court justices (but the changes are only to take effect in the next Knesset).
And in the last weeks of its term, the government passed a law greatly weakening the power of the attorney general, and another law removing the Department for Internal Police Investigations (DIPI) from under the State Attorney’s Office.

One of the original and most extreme pieces of legislation in the judicial overhaul package would have enabled the Knesset to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, with a majority of just 61 MKs.

It was passed in its first reading in early 2023 but was then frozen by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the face of the massive anti-government demonstrations, especially in the wake of Netanyahu’s dismissal of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, which he later reversed. The bill could be brought to its final readings in the next Knesset if the current right-wing coalition wins the election.

The Times of Israel asked opposition parties whether they would reverse the legislation passed by the outgoing government, and whether they have proactive plans for the legal system, such as enacting a full constitution, or passing a Basic Law: Legislation to define how Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws can be altered.

Coalition parties were asked whether they would enact further reforms to the judiciary — in particular the Supreme Court override bill.

Beyond the question of legislative changes, the other crucial issue on the judicial landscape in the next Knesset will be the appointment of new Supreme Court justices.

The court already has four open spots on the bench due to Levin’s four-year refusal to make Supreme Court appointments because he lacked a majority on the Judicial Selection Committee for his preferred candidates. During the course of the next Knesset, should it last its full four-year term, another five justices will retire, meaning as many as nine new Supreme Court justices could be appointed, potentially radically influencing the character of the court.

Click to learn about a party’s legal reform agenda:

Likud
Yashar
Religious Zionism – Zehut
The Democrats
B’Yachad
Joint List
Yisrael Beytenu
Shas and United Torah Judaism
Otzma Yehudit
Ra’am
Reservists – Economic Party
People of Israel

Likud

The Likud party and Levin’s office refused multiple requests for details on what the party’s legal reform agenda for the next Knesset will be.

The party’s election campaign and Levin’s office refused to say if they would pass the Supreme Court override legislation into law, or answer any other question on the issue of legal reform.

The party and Levin’s office also refused to comment on whether a new Likud-led coalition would see itself as having a mandate to pass new legal reform laws if it had not spelled out to the electorate during the campaign what reforms it would pursue.

It seems clear, however, that Levin himself would seek to continue the judicial overhaul agenda. In January this year, against the background of ultra-Orthodox demands to legislate the Supreme Court override law, Hebrew media quoted Levin as telling Haredi leaders: “I did not stop the legislation in 2023, and I certainly support it now.”

Speaking at an election event last month, Levin said, “If the right wing wins the elections there will be different Supreme Court judges, a different legal system, a legal system that will be fitting not only for a Jewish state but for a democratic state.”

Levin was referring to his ardent desire to have two hardline conservative legal academics appointed to the Supreme Court though they were vetoed by the Supreme Court justices on the Judicial Selection Committee. The judicial appointments law passed by the coalition and authored by Levin appears designed specifically to enable their appointment.

Yashar

Yashar, led by former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, does not have a consolidated program for legal reform, but in answer to questions from The Times of Israel it outlined proposals that would reject the outgoing government’s agenda of reducing judicial independence and weakening legal restraints on the government.

Yashar said it would repeal the coalition’s judicial appointments law, although it did not state explicitly what it would replace it with, saying simply that it would lead “a professional process” aimed at achieving “broad consensus” on the issue.

“The process we initiate will establish—through Basic Law legislation—a mechanism for selecting judges that safeguards judicial independence, based on an appropriate balance between professional and public considerations,” the party said.

Yashar said it would oppose a Supreme Court override law, which it asserted would “encourage unnecessary friction” between the judiciary and the political leadership.

The party said it would seek to anchor in law “an amended and balanced mechanism” for judicial review of legislation through amendments to Basic Law: The Judiciary.

It would also pass a Basic Law: Legislation which would determine in law the “supremacy” of the quasi-constitutional Basic Laws over regular laws, and lay out a mechanism for legislating and amending them with a special majority, something which has never been done.

Although the response was vaguely worded, it appears that Yashar would therefore anchor in law the power of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation. At the same time, the language about a “balanced” mechanism and the promise to determine how Basic Laws are passed hints at an arrangement that may put certain restraints on how and when the High Court can strike down legislation.

“The overarching goal will be to remove the constitutional rules of the game from the day-to-day political struggle, and to provide Israeli democracy with a stable, agreed-upon, and clear foundation,” the party said.

Religious Zionism – Zehut

The ultranationalist Religious Zionism party headed by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich issued the most consolidated and detailed plan for judicial reform of any of the parties vying for election.

The party’s program would be even more radical than the judicial overhaul pursued by the outgoing coalition and would drastically reduce restraints on executive power.

Religious Zionism’s agenda includes passing the Supreme Court override law with its requirement for a majority of only 61 MKs to reinstate legislation the court found unconstitutional.

The party said it would also enact limitations on the right of standing, likely meaning that civil rights groups and government watchdog groups, many of which are opposed to Religious Zionism’s policies, would be more limited in when and how they could file petitions to the Supreme Court.

The party would also advance legislation to split the role of the attorney general and make ministerial legal advisers political appointees, which would loosen the legal restraints on ministers.

The Democrats

The left-wing Democrats party headed by MK Yair Golan has also developed a clear program for legal reform — one that would increase judicial independence and legal restraints on executive power, and anchor human rights in law as part of its liberal vision and worldview.

The party says that it will act to repeal all of the judicial overhaul laws passed by the outgoing government.

The party’s platform proposes to protect fundamental civil rights such as equality, freedom of expression, freedom of protest, freedom of religion and freedom from religion in a Basic Law, and would also enshrine social rights in such legislation, including the right to health, education and housing.

The party would seek to legislate a Basic Law: Legislation to determine how Basic Laws are passed and formalize their elevated status.

The Democrats say they would formalize judicial review over legislation, strengthen the Knesset’s power of oversight over the government, for example through committee review of ministerial actions, and anchor in law the power of the attorney general to determine the legality of government actions and decisions.

B’Yachad

Like most parties, the B’Yachad party headed by former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid does not have a formal policy agenda for legal reform, but the party issued several vague responses to questions from The Times of Israel.

The party said it would repeal the outgoing government’s judicial appointments reform law.

It would also formally define the relationship between the three branches of government in Israel, and pass a Basic Law: Legislation to determine how Basic Laws are passed and “how and when” the Supreme Court can intervene in Knesset legislation.

Given that party leader Bennett has in the past expressed support for limiting the Supreme Court’s scope for judicial review, it would appear that its intention to regulate the circumstances of judicial intervention would be stricter than currently, although the party did not elaborate on its position.

B’Yachad did state, however, that it would seek to enshrine Israel’s values as a Jewish and Democratic state, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, in a Basic Law.

The Joint List

The Joint List of three majority-Arab parties headed by Yousef Jabareen says it will work for “a constitutional infrastructure based on equal citizenship for all citizens, regardless of their national, religious, or other affiliation,” which will guarantee equality, individual and collective rights, freedom of conscience and belief, and the separation of religion and state.

Yisrael Beytenu

Yisrael Beytenu, led by former finance and defense minister Avigdor Liberman, said it would create a constitution for Israel and establish a constitutional court to arbitrate constitutional disputes.

The party did not say explicitly whether it would repeal the outgoing government’s judicial appointments law, although Yisrael Beytenu strongly opposed the legislation in the Knesset.

The party also said it would oppose a Supreme Court override law.

In addition, Yisrael Beytenu’s platform says it will restrict prime ministers to two Knesset terms; would oppose a law giving prime ministers immunity from prosecution during their term; and would pass legislation barring anyone under indictment from being prime minister or president.

It would also amend the controversial Basic Law: Nation-State to enshrine Israel’s status as a Jewish and democratic state that respects the equality of all citizens. The nation-state law, passed in 2018, includes several clauses that have been strongly criticized by minority groups and progressive organizations as undermining the legal right to equality, in particular a clause stating that the right to national self-determination in Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People.

Shas and United Torah Judaism

Ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism do not have a policy platform and did not respond to requests for details on the parties’ positions on legal reform.

As coalition partners, Shas and United Torah Judaism largely supported all the government’s judicial overhaul laws, including the judicial appointments reform, reducing the powers of the attorney general, and the Supreme Court override legislation in its first reading.

At the beginning of 2026, Hebrew media reported that the ultra-Orthodox parties were pushing for a resumption of the Supreme Court override bill in order to pass a law reinstating blanket exemptions from military service for ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students that would be protected from Supreme Court intervention. The coalition ultimately did not try to advance that legislation again, however.

Otzma Yehudit

The far-right party headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir said it would continue the outgoing government’s agenda of restricting the judiciary’s ability to check government power.

One of the agenda items on Otzma Yehudit’s election program is “fighting Juristocracy.” It said it would reform the judicial system to “restore balance, democracy and the will of the people” and enact policies to “prevent an activist judiciary.”

In particular, the party supports the passage into law of the outgoing government’s 61-MK Supreme Court override clause.

Ra’am

The Ra’am party, headed by MK Mansour Abbas, does not have a party platform and did not respond to questions from The Times of Israel on what legal reforms it would pursue and whether it would repeal or preserve the legislation passed by the outgoing government.

The party voted against the judicial appointments reform law and the Supreme Court override law when they came to a vote in the Knesset.

Reservists-Economic Party

The Reservists-Economic Party led by Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha says it would split the role of the attorney general, a position long advocated by right-wing parties in Israel.

The party also says it would pass a Basic Law: Legislation to “formalize the relationship between the executive, legislature, and judiciary,” although it does not detail what that relationship would look like.

The Reservists-Economic Party would, like other parties, limit a prime minister to two Knesset terms or eight years in office.

People of Israel

The People of Israel party led by former IDF general Ofer Winter says it will seek “checks and balances” in the judicial system, including an appeal court above the Supreme Court.

People of Israel would also split the attorney general role into two roles — a prosecutor general and a chief legal adviser to the government.