Scolding Levin, High Court allows him 10 more days to appoint new top justice

Court says ‘severe harm’ caused by justice minister’s ongoing delays to election of new president, but gives him an extension to assess claims of misconduct against Justice Amit

Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter

High Court Justice Yael Wilner presides over a hearing on a petition requesting the court order Justice Minister Yariv Levin call a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint a new Supreme Court president, July 18, 2024. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
High Court Justice Yael Wilner presides over a hearing on a petition requesting the court order Justice Minister Yariv Levin call a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint a new Supreme Court president, July 18, 2024. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Expressing deep frustration with Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the High Court of Justice on Thursday granted him 10 more days to appoint a new Supreme Court president, to allow the Judicial Selection Committee to deliberate on claims of misconduct against Acting Supreme Court President Isaac Amit.

Levin now has until January 26 to appoint a new permanent head to Israel’s top court, after the High Court ordered him in September to hold a vote for the appointment “in short order,” and then instructed him in December to make the appointment by January 16 when he failed to comply with the original order.

The latest delay stems from Levin’s unilateral decision to postpone the vote due to a media report that Amit, who is expected to be elected president if a vote is called, conducted himself improperly in civil suits he was party to involving property he jointly owns with his brother.

Levin has refused to appoint a new court president for 15 months due to his opposition to the liberal Amit. Levin has sought the appointment of a conservative head to the Supreme Court, but does not have the votes in the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint him.

The High Court has ordered Levin twice to hold a vote for a new court president, and in December gave him a deadline of January 16 to finally appoint a new head of the judiciary, which will now also not be met.

In their ruling on Thursday, the three justices on the panel, including two conservatives and one liberal, pointed out Levin’s lengthy delay.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin (left) attends a plenum session in the Knesset on November 13, 2024. (Chaim Goldbergl/Flash90); Acting Supreme Court President Justice Isaac Amit at the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, November 14, 2024 (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)

“The justice minister has refused to [appoint a court chief] for over 15 months, and severe harm has been caused, and continues to be caused, to the rule of law in the State of Israel,” Justices Yael Wilner, Alex Stein, and Ofer Grosskopf wrote.

In further criticism of Levin and his unilateral notice that he was delaying the vote, the justices insisted that the only body authorized to evaluate any misconduct by judicial candidates, and to determine if more time was needed for such deliberations, was the Judicial Selection Committee.

Despite these criticisms, the court said that because of the “importance of appearances,” it had decided to give Levin another 10 days to bring the relevant claims against Amit to the committee for it to hear and discuss.

“In order to remove doubt, we make clear that by the end of this period the minister is obligated to bring the issue of the election of a Supreme Court president to a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee,” the justices stressed.

On Monday, the Ynet news website published a report that said Amit had not notified the court system of potential conflicts of interest he had in civil lawsuits to which he was a party dealing with a property he owns in Tel Aviv with his brother. It also said he had heard cases presented in court by a lawyer’s office that represented him in one of the civil cases. It said he appeared in the relevant paperwork under his previous last name, Goldfreind.

The report also alleged that Amit was directly involved in a selection committee that considered the advancement of a judge who presided over a case regarding the Tel Aviv apartment.

The Judicial Authority defended Amit, saying that due to power of attorney arrangements, he was represented in the cases by others who did not know of the proceedings, and had made no attempt to conceal his identity. It also said Amit had not known the potential conflicts of interest until he was approached by the outlet on the matter.

The High Court’s decision on Thursday is the latest episode in a long-running, acrimonious fight between the judiciary and Levin which has caused intense stress to the relationship between the two branches of government, and has threatened to descend into a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Following the publication of the claims against Amit on Monday, Levin on Wednesday told the court he was postponing the vote in the Judicial Selection Committee to have time to properly assess the claims.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and Justice Minister Yariv Levin at a farewell ceremony for retiring acting Supreme Court president Uzi Vogelman, at the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, October 1, 2024. (Oren Ben Hakoon/POOL)

He also intimated that there was a preliminary police probe into the allegations, while MK Yitzhak Kroizer of Otzma Yehudit and a member of the committee asked the attorney general if she would be opening a criminal investigation.

But the head of the police investigations department, Deputy Commissioner Boaz Blatt, said on Thursday morning he would not request the attorney general open such an investigation, stating that “no suspicion of criminal violations has arisen, and there is no basis for a request to the attorney general to open a criminal investigation.”

Despite police declining to investigate, Levin filed a request to the legal adviser to the Justice Ministry and the Judicial Selection Committee asking for disciplinary proceedings to be opened against Amit, accusing him of violating ethical regulations and conflict of interest laws incumbent upon judges.

Following Blatt’s decision, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara told Kroizer she would not be opening an investigation since the police had determined there was no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing against Amit.

“The position of all the professional parties who examined the claims is that they do not present a basis for the continuation of a probe,” Baharav-Miara told the far-right MK.

Later in the day, the attorney general provided her response to Levin’s decision to postpone the vote, reprimanding him for taking the step so close to the court’s deadline and for exceeding his authority, by not even asking the court for a delay but rather unilaterally pushing off the vote in defiance of the court order.

As the court itself ruled, Baharav Miara said that only the Judicial Selection Committee was empowered to review the complaints against Amit.

Most Popular
read more: