Ombudsman closes disciplinary case against top judge, rejecting right-wing push to undermine him

State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula closes a disciplinary case against Supreme Court President Isaac Amit after finding just one of the 10 ethics complaints against the top judge to be justified, but still not worthy of disciplinary action.

The lone complaint that was recognized argued that Amit should have recused himself from a case that had the potential to benefit his brother.

Kula dismissed nine other complaints against Amit, many of which were filed just before Amit was appointed president of the court in January 2025. The ombudsman says some of the complaints should never even have been submitted in the first place. The organization behind one of the complaints “simply threw claims with no substance out into the air,” Kula wrote.

In other cases, Kula said it would have been better for Amit to have taken certain actions to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if none actually existed.

Kula also rejects a much-publicized complaint against Amit regarding alleged building violations by the Supreme Court president and criticizes those who had labeled Amit “a construction criminal,” determining that the allegations were false and that such claims had done “a significant injustice” to Amit and his family.

The ombudsman also pointedly notes that the complaints against Amit were based on “reviews of thousands of judicial decisions he issued” as a lower court and Supreme Court judge.

The complaints were mostly submitted by right-wing legal advocacy organizations, and Amit himself had previously complained that the complaints were part of a concerted effort to delegitimize his candidacy for Supreme Court president.

From October 2023 until January 2025, Justice Minister Yariv Levin refused to call a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee on appointing a new Supreme Court President, because he opposed Amit but did not have the votes to elect his preferred candidate for president, Yosef Elron, to head the court.

When the High Court finally ordered Levin to hold the vote, numerous reports of ethics violations against Amit emerged in the press – which Kula has now adjudicated – leading Levin to further delay the committee vote on the president until the court insisted he hold the vote immediately.

Amit says in response that he respects Kula’s findings and will take them into account.

“The ombudsman’s decision was made after dozens of complaints were filed regarding President Amit – complaints that were filed after tens of thousands of decisions he made throughout his approximately 30-year tenure as a judge were examined,” Amit adds.

Levin nevertheless calls for Amit to resign, saying it was “unthinkable” that a Supreme Court judge had been found to have had a conflict of interest on a case he dealt with.