High Court presses Levin over refusal to cooperate with Supreme Court president

Lead

Israel's Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara stated that Justice Minister Yariv Levin's refusal to cooperate with Supreme Court President Isaac Amit is harming the Israeli public and obstructing judicial appointments. The statement arrived in a legal brief submitted ahead of a High Court of Justice hearing on the matter. The brief, submitted on Monday and reported by the Jerusalem Post, argued that Levin's refusal constitutes "a severe, unjustified, and unexplained infringement by the executive branch on the judiciary" and disrupts the system of checks and balances in Israeli democracy.

The High Court heard the case on May 20 and appeared deeply skeptical of Levin's justification. The dispute centers on administrative judicial appointments that, by law, require cooperation between the justice minister and the Supreme Court president, but Levin has refused to recognize Amit's appointment as valid. The court convened to hear arguments over whether to compel that cooperation, as detailed by the Jerusalem Post.

Coverage Comparison

The Jerusalem Post, the sole outlet reporting the story, covered the issue in three separate articles, each reflecting a distinct stage or angle. The first report, published May 11, focused on the Attorney-General's written submission, detailing its consequences for public welfare, including the vacancy of 45 judicial posts and a sharp drop in the number of temporary judges available. The second, published May 5, broadened the context to consider the political trajectory of the "deep state" rhetoric behind the affair. The third, published May 20, provided a detailed account of the hearing itself, including the justices' questioning of Levin's attorney and the arguments heard from both sides.

Key Claims

• As reported by the Jerusalem Post, the Attorney-General's filing, authored by Or Ori Stein and Moria Flamen directly from the State Attorney's Office, described Levin's refusal as an infringement by the executive branch on the judiciary with a harmful impact on the public.
• The Jerusalem Post stated that at least 45 judicial posts remain vacant, including the presidencies of the Central and Beersheba district courts, and that 14 retired judges serve on temporary appointments, a decline of 58% from the 33 in 2024. The Supreme Court registrar position has been vacant for a year and a half, and 27 vice president positions are among the delayed appointments.
• The communication breakdown began in June 2024, when Levin ceased holding work meetings with then-interim president Uzi Fogelman, and persisted after Isaac Amit entered the role in January 2025.
• Levin has argued that Amit's appointment is invalid because the Judicial Selection Committee session lacked a quorum, and because he did not publish the appointment in the official gazette or sign the certificate.
• The state argued that Levin completed some appointments that required consultation with the Supreme Court president but avoided publishing them under his own signature to prevent formal recognition. The state also cited a 1985 precedent about repeated cooperation reflecting "bridges" not "walls" between the branches.
• A petition launched in February 2026, calling on US President Donald Trump to impose personal sanctions on Israel's Supreme Court president and attorney-general, gathered more than 80,000 signatures within weeks, the Jerusalem Post reported. Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg responded by comparing the appeal to ancient petitions to Rome that preceded the destruction of Jewish sovereignty in 63 BCE.
• Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly used invoked the term "deep state" in design. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has promised to "trample" the Supreme Court president, the Jerusalem Post noted. The term's origin has been traced to Turkey's military-intelligence-crime networks exposed in 1996.
• The Supreme Court's January 2024 ruling striking down the "reasonableness" amendment was the first time the Court asserted authority to invalidate a Basic Law amendment, in an 8-7 decision.

Perspectives

The dispute pits Levin and his allies, who argue the judicial appointment was procedurally flawed, against the Attorney-General and the High Court, who see the denial as a threat to the separation of powers. The Jerusalem Post also places the affair within a broader campaign of public rhetoric.

The Justice Ministry, through Levin's legal counsel, maintains that Amit's appointment is invalid under the Judicial Selection Committee had lacked a quorum and because the minister did not publish or sign the certificate. Levin has proposed a practical solution: that the Court transfer the pending powers to the deputy president, Noam Sohlberg. His attorney argued further that the actual legal grounds for the refusal imply the need to protect the minister's authority.

The Attorney-General's office rejects that position as lacking legal basis and the Attorney-General, Gali Baharav-Miara, insisted that the burden of judicial appointments is a fundamental foundation of the Israeli system of government. Attorney Omri Epstein, arguing for the state, stated that Levin's refusal has no basis, and the government's written submission called it an infringement of democratic systems.

The **High Court` as a whole expressed considerable skepticism. Justice Grosskopf noted that Levin had published other appointments made in the same committee session, including Sohlberg's elevation to deputy president. Justice Kasher warned that accepting Levin's view would hand appraisal judges and give minority members a de facto veto power by refusing to attend, and the Court rejected the claims that the compliance – the criticism putting the system as a "hostage" to a stalemate.

Zulat, a progressive advocacy organization, petitioned the Court to compel Levin to break the impasse, with attorney Hagai Kalai arguing that Levin's method leads to "anarchy" within the judiciary.

Beyond the immediate case, Deputy President Sohlberg's open letter to the defendants – who pressed for foreign intervention – encapsulated a fear that the controversy may be resolved against the actual institutions. "The solutions belong to us," he wrote, "even if they are difficult, not to others."