Constitutional crisis flares as Levin given deadline to appoint new Supreme Court chief

Israel’s slow-burning constitutional crisis flared up fiercely on Thursday after the High Court of Justice ordered Justice Minister Yariv Levin to hold a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee for a new president of the Supreme Court by January 16.

On a day of high legal drama, the High Court made it clear that it expected the government and its minister to abide by its rulings. Levin by way of response accused the court of establishing a judicial dictatorship, and the acting head of Israel’s top court accused the government in turn of undermining the separation of powers in the country.

The tempestuous sequence of events brought back the severe political and ideological divides over the balance of power between the government and the judicial authority witnessed during the height of the coalition’s efforts to neuter the judiciary last year.

And Levin himself suggested that he is now prepared to revive the legislation at the heart of that highly contentious agenda which led to unprecedented social and political turmoil, in response to the High Court ruling.

Thursday’s decision came in response to a request for a contempt of court order against Levin for failing to hold a vote on a new court president after the justices ordered him to do so in short order back in September.

Levin called the Supreme Court justices “dictators” in response, failed to say whether he would abide by the ruling, and insisted that it is now necessary to revive his judicial overhaul agenda designed to give the government control over the judiciary.

Earlier on Thursday, Levin convened the Judicial Selection Committee for a second time since the processes for appointing a new president were completed, but again failed to call a vote, spending time instead on irregular procedures which resulted in the three Supreme Court justices who are members of the committee walking out of the meeting.

On Thursday evening, Acting Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, who would likely be elected as permanent court president should a vote be held, lambasted the government and Levin for undermining the independence of the judiciary in a public speech at the Israeli Association for Public Law.

Levin has refused to appoint a new Supreme Court president for over a year due to his desire to appoint a conservative to the position — a move for which he lacks the votes in the committee.

The Supreme Court sitting in its capacity as the High Court of Justice ordered Levin at the end of September to hold a vote to appoint a new president, but the justice minister has slow-walked the process, stretching the interpretation of the court’s order that the committee hold a vote “close to” the end of the waiting period required after nominating candidates for the position of president, which was in mid-November.

In a hearing on Thursday afternoon on the request for a contempt order against Levin, the three justices, including two conservatives, gave short shrift to the arguments of the justice minister’s lawyer Tzion Amir, and pointed out its order in September to hold a vote in short order was being stretched to breaking point.

The three presiding justices wrote that Levin had not implemented the core aspect of the September order, holding a vote, and that it was right that it “clarify the operative order” of that ruling in a manner which “removes all doubt regarding the obligations of the minister” to bring about the appointment of a new court president.

“In order to allow the Judicial Nomination Committee to exhaust its discussions on the subject, we instruct that the justice minister bring to a vote the election of the Supreme Court president in the Judicial Selection Committee by January 16, 2025,” the justices ordered.

The court declined, however, to hold Levin in contempt, saying that such a tool was designed for extreme circumstances and noting that the minister had conducted the necessary processes to enable a vote to be held.

Return of the judicial overhaul

Levin reacted furiously to the order, accusing the justices of Israel’s top court of turning themselves into “dictatorial rulers” who “trample on the the choice of the people,” and said it was now critical to decide “once and for all” whether or not to restrain the judiciary.

“The High Court judges, with unsurpassed arrogance, have pushed us all to the point where it is no longer possible to escape the necessary decision: whether to finally hand over control of the country to a handful of judges who elect themselves in private chambers, or to restore democracy by taking a clear and unequivocal stand in defense of the powers of the Knesset and the government,” Levin declared.

Far-right communications minister Shlomo Karhi called on Levin to ignore the High Court’s ruling, and said he should immediately bring the legislation to grant the government control of the Judicial Selection Committee back to the Knesset for its final readings.

That legislation was the most radical and controversial part of Levin’s judicial overhaul agenda, which even the justice minister later conceded would have undermined the separation of powers, and was stopped by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2023 at the last moment due to massive protests and strike action.

A source close to Levin indicated late Thursday that the minister is indeed considering bringing the legislation back to the Knesset to pass it into law, stating that “between now and January 16 there will be a lot of change.”

Kan news quoted a different source as saying, “This is war. There is a [draft] law ready which will change the situation in the [judicial selection] committee.”

The bill could easily be brought to its second and third readings since it has already been approved in the ​Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, although the coalition may struggle to get a majority for the bill given the reservations some Likud MKs expressed with the far-reaching legislation last year.

Opposition leaders swiftly panned Levin.

Opposition Leader Yair Lapid declares that it was Levin himself “who tried to turn Israel into an undemocratic state with his illegal coup.”

Levin, who was “one of the main people responsible for the October 7 disaster, is again breaking the law and dishonoring the Justice Ministry,” Lapid posted on X.

National Unity chairman Benny Gantz and The Democrats chief Yair Golan also launched attacks on the Likud lawmaker.

“There has never been a justice minister who has done so much damage in so short a time,” wrote Gantz.

Levin is acting as if Israel has returned to its pre-war routine, with the hostages home and the economy thriving, allowing him to return to his judicial overhaul agenda, stated Golan.

“While the country continues to bleed, Levin is returning to the dream of a coup d’état – a campaign of revenge and destruction against the judicial system,” Golan said— arguing that Levin enjoys neither the legal right nor the public support for such a campaign.

Undermining the judiciary

In parallel with the dramatic developments in court, Amit gave a combative speech at the Israeli Association for Public Law, lambasting the government and Levin for what he said were their actions designed to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

“Precisely in these days, we are witnessing attempts to undermine the strength of the judiciary and to weaken it – to the point of real concern about eroding the institutional independence of the judiciary and the foundations of the separation of powers,” declared Amit.

The acting head of the judiciary pointed to Levin’s judicial overhaul agenda, which would have given the government control over the judiciary; calls by ministers and MKs to ignore Supreme Court rulings; government efforts to assert control over the appointment of the state ombudsman for judges; Levin’s refusal to meet with Amit and his predecessor for over half a year; Levin’s efforts to curtail judicial positions on benches around the country through the state budget; and Levin’s slow-walking of the appointment process for a new Supreme Court president itself.

“This is the first time in the history of the country that the executive branch has so blatantly interfered in the internal management of the judiciary and the way its resources are allocated,” stormed Amit.

“And don’t let the technical terminology fool you: harming the institutional strength of the judiciary is harming the authority of the judiciary, and above all, its responsibility to the entire public,” he continued, adding that “The Judicial Authority will stand strong in the face of the attempts to weaken its institutional resilience”

Earlier on Thursday, Levin convened the Judicial Selection Committee again, supposedly to discuss the appointment of a new Supreme Court president, although the forum never got that far down the agenda. Levin failed to hold a vote on the appointment for the second time in a row.

Levin had, without approval from the committee, invited several conservative legal scholars to lecture the members of the panel on the seniority system which they and Levin oppose and by which the justice on the Supreme Court with the most number of years on the bench is the only candidate nominated for president.

As a result, the committee did not deliberate on the two actual candidates standing for the position.

Levin reportedly stated at the end of the meeting that the next hearing would discuss the objections he solicited from the public to the candidates for the position.

Following the High Court’s September ruling ordering him to hold a vote for the president, Levin unilaterally nominated all 12 serving justices for the position and invited members of the public to submit their objections to any of them, seemingly in continuation of his tactics to further stall on making the appointment.

Although 10 of the justices subsequently told Levin they did not wish to be considered candidates, Levin insisted that he would ignore their request and would go ahead and discuss the objections anyway.

Liberal members of the committee and government watchdog groups have claimed that Levin does not have the authority to hold hearings on justices who do not wish to be considered candidates, but Levin has insisted that, as chairman of the selection committee, he can do so regardless.

Sam Sokol contributed to this report.