Supreme Court backs private Orthodox conversions in citizenship dispute
Justices rule that Interior Ministry must recognize conversion by Rabbi Haim Amsalem's court; ruling seen as challenge to state's handling of converts who don't adhere to strict Haredi religious norms
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Interior Ministry cannot refuse citizenship to a person who converted to Judaism through a recognized private rabbinical court in Israel.
Thursday’s ruling, which specifically concerns the Ahavat HaGer rabbinical court led by prominent Rabbi Haim Amsalem, implicitly challenges the ministry’s tendency to reject citizenship applications from people who converted through non-state courts, according to Rabbi Seth Farber, head of the religious rights group ITIM.
“This landmark decision safeguards the status and dignity of those who have joined the Jewish people through private courts,” Farber said in a written statement to The Times of Israel. “These individuals underwent rigorous, authentic halachic conversions, and the court has rightly affirmed that their Jewish identity cannot be held hostage by state bureaucracy.”
The case centered on a Filipino caregiver who arrived in Israel in 2005, developed a connection to Judaism and converted through Amsalem’s court in 2018. Despite fulfilling all the religious requirements for conversion, her application for citizenship was repeatedly rejected by the Population and Immigration Authority, setting off a lengthy legal battle.
The Interior Ministry, reflecting the approach of the ultra-Orthodox rabbinic establishment, expects converts to observe Jewish law according to strict Haredi standards, explained David Amsalem, an attorney who represented his father in the legal battle. Ahavat HaGer, by contrast, allows converts to follow more moderate interpretations of halacha, he said.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the authority was required to recognize her conversion, rejecting the Interior Ministry’s arguments against the legal standing of Amsalem’s court.
The justices clarified that recognizing private conversion courts does not prevent the Population Authority from examining the sincerity of individual conversions or taking steps to prevent attempts to exploit the Law of Return to obtain Israeli citizenship.
“[I]n these difficult times for Israel… the words of Maimonides and the Talmud regarding the lenient approach to be adopted in the conversion process are more relevant than ever,” they wrote.
The conversion question
The question of which conversions Israel recognizes for the purposes of citizenship has been a longstanding source of controversy, with successive governments failing to resolve the issue through legislation. Disagreements extend beyond conversions performed abroad and those conducted by the Reform and Conservative movements: Even Orthodox conversions carried out within Israel can face bureaucratic hurdles.
Conversions in Israel are generally handled through the Chief Rabbinate, which is dominated by ultra-Orthodox leaders who critics say take an overly restrictive approach.
A landmark 2016 Supreme Court ruling established that the Interior Ministry, which determines eligibility for citizenship under the Law of Return, must recognize conversions conducted by private Orthodox rabbinical courts in Israel, provided they are headed by accepted and reputable rabbinic authorities and adhere to rigorous religious standards. Several courts have since gained recognition under this framework, including the Giyur K’Halacha network established by ITIM.
In 2022, a District Court recognized both Giyur K’Halacha and Amsalem’s Ahavat HaGer court, according to attorney Amsalem. But a technical issue in the wording of the judgment left the Interior Ministry room to keep questioning the authority of Ahavat HaGer, he said.
The dispute eventually came to a head over the Filipino caregiver’s citizenship application. The ministry initially rejected her request on the grounds that her conversion court was not recognized. Even after agreeing to grant her citizenship, it appealed the lower court’s determination that Amsalem’s independent rabbinical court should be recognized.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the ministry’s appeal, affirming both Amsalem’s authority and the religious rigor of his court’s conversion process. The justices also criticized the ministry for prolonging the proceedings and ordered the state to pay the petitioners NIS 20,000 in legal costs.
Although the ruling specifically clarifies the legal standing of Amsalem’s court, it could also have implications for other legal obstacles facing converts, Farber said.
“Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling is a step forward, yet it highlights a glaring abdication of responsibility by the Israeli government,” he wrote. “The courts should not have to force the state to prioritize conversion; that moral and national imperative belongs in the halls of the Knesset and the Prime Minister’s Office.”
The ruling applies to matters under the Interior Ministry’s jurisdiction, including citizenship, but does not extend to religious affairs such as marriage, which fall under the authority of the Chief Rabbinate and are governed by a separate framework.
Nevertheless, converts through private rabbinical courts have legal avenues for marrying in Israel, and further legal challenges could expand their rights, David Amsalem said.