Knesset to High Court: Judicial-selection overhaul does not justify striking down Basic Law

Lead

The Knesset has told Israel's High Court of Justice that its new judicial-selection system should not be struck down simply because the justices may consider the existing system better. In arguments submitted as part of an ongoing challenge, the Knesset said that only severe damage to the country's democratic character could justify invalidating part of a Basic Law.

The case concerns an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary and a complementary amendment to the Courts Law that would change the composition of the nine-member Judicial Selection Committee, which appoints every judge in Israel. The Basic Law amendment passed 67-1 in March 2025 and is scheduled to take effect when the next Knesset begins its term. Nine petitions are now being heard together.

Coverage comparison

Reporting on this story comes from the Jerusalem Post, which covered the Knesset's arguments in two separate articles. The first article, published July 22, focused on the Knesset's justification for the new system, emphasizing that even if it resulted in a lower professional standard among Supreme Court appointees, lawmakers could decide the trade-off was justified by greater public trust and a more diverse judiciary. The second article, published July 27, reported on the Knesset's formal response to the court and the rejection of that response by the Movement for Quality Government (MQG), one of the petitioners.

The two articles together present the Knesset's position, the government's argument, and the petitioners' opposition, offering a view of the legal battle from both sides.

Key claims

The Knesset argued that the new judicial-selection system should not be struck down merely because the justices may consider the existing system better. It said that only severe damage to the country's democratic character could justify invalidating part of a Basic Law, according to the Jerusalem Post.

The Knesset also told the court that even if the new system resulted in a lower professional standard among Supreme Court appointees, lawmakers could decide that the trade-off was justified by greater public trust and a more diverse judiciary, as reported by the Jerusalem Post.

The Movement for Quality Government, one of the petitioners, rejected the Knesset's position in a response filed Sunday, arguing that the Knesset's supplementary arguments added no new factual or legal basis and largely repeated claims already made during last month's hearing. MQG asked the court to make its conditional orders absolute, thereby accepting the petitions and invalidating the challenged provisions.

The Knesset divided its response into four parts: the composition of the committee, appointments to lower courts, appointments to the Supreme Court, and a mechanism intended to break prolonged deadlocks over Supreme Court vacancies, the Jerusalem Post reported.

The government argued that considering a candidate's worldview is not the same as demanding political loyalty. The government also criticized the tone of the June hearing.

The Knesset has a backup plan if the committee cannot agree on Supreme Court appointments, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Background and context

Under the current system, the nine-member Judicial Selection Committee includes three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two MKs, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Appointing a Supreme Court justice requires seven votes, forcing agreement between political and professional members.

Under the new law, the two Bar Association representatives would be replaced by two senior lawyers chosen separately by coalition and opposition MKs. Supreme Court appointments would require five votes, including support from both political blocs, but none of the three justices would have to agree. Lower-court appointments would also require five votes but would still need the support of at least one judge, one coalition-side member, and one opposition-side member.

The law is scheduled to take effect only when the next Knesset begins its term.

Critics, including Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, argue that the changes would weaken judicial independence by making judges more dependent on politicians for appointment and promotion, according to the Jerusalem Post. The Knesset and government say neither the coalition nor opposition could appoint judges alone and that the changes would make the courts more representative of Israeli society.

Those concerns dominated the June 21 hearing before an expanded 11-justice panel. The court issued conditional orders requiring explanations as to why the legislation should not be struck down, with the central question being whether the changes damage Israel's democratic identity so seriously that the court may intervene despite their status as a Basic Law.

The supplementary arguments were submitted on Wednesday (July 22) after the panel questioned the Knesset and government one day earlier over whether the new system would make judges more dependent on political approval and weaken judicial independence.