Israeli Supreme Court strikes down Netanyahu regime’s judicial overhaul law
By Staff Writer
The Supreme Court of Israel on Monday (01) in a historic judgment has struck down the government’s reasonableness limitation law, annulling one of its quasi-constitutional Basic Laws for the first time in the country’s history. The court split over the highly contentious legislation, with eight justices ruling to strike down the law and seven to uphold it.
However, 13 out of the 15 justice panel that heard the case wrote in their opinions that the court did have the authority to review Basic Laws.
Three of the five justices who asserted this right but declined to strike down the reasonableness law expressed deep concern over the legislation and wrote that it should be interpreted in a narrow manner to preserve aspects of the reasonableness standard.
The ruling marks the culmination of a year-long battle between the government and the judiciary over the nature of Israel’s democracy and the question of which branch of government has ultimate say over its constitutional character. The reasonableness law was advanced after the government backed down from far-reaching and extreme judicial overhaul legislation that, according to Times of Israel, many legal scholars said would have severely, if not mortally, damaged Israel’s democracy.
The reasonableness law, passed back in July as an amendment to Basic Law barred all courts, including the High Court, from deliberating on and ruling against government and ministerial decisions on the basis of the judicial standard of reasonableness.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayahu’s government attempted to enforce this law to erode minority rights, make it harder to fight official corruption and pave the way for the annexation of the West Bank, and further the occupation of the Gaza Strip.
Former Israel’s Supreme Court Justice Hayut has criticized the reasonableness limitation law, which limits the court to review and strike down Basic Laws in extreme cases. The law, which abolishes the judicial standard of reasonableness for decisions made by the prime minister, cabinet, and government ministries, harms the separation of powers and the rule of law, which are essential characteristics of Israel as a democratic state.
Justice David Mintz, a conservative justice, criticized Hayut’s ruling, arguing that the law undermines democratic principles and does not allow the court to deliberate on the validity of a Basic Law. Justice Yael Wilner, a moderate conservative, argued that the High Court has the right to review and strike down Basic Laws, but also expressed concern about the reasonableness limitation law. She based this authority on Basic Law: The Judiciary, which empowers the court to give legal relief for the sake of justice. Wilner suggested that the doctrine of “existing interpretation” should be used to interpret the law more narrowly, allowing the reasonableness standard to be used in cases where an administrative decision is extremely unreasonable, but allowing the law to stand for cases where that is not the case.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the court has the right to review and strike down Basic Laws, despite opposition to the reasonableness law. Justices Wilner, Stein, Steinitz, and Yechiel Kasher all argued that the court should not annul the reasonableness law, but that it could only strike down a Basic Law in extreme situations where fundamental individual rights are harmed and as a last resort. Retired Justice Hayut, Justices Acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Daphne Barak-Erez, Justice Anat Baron (retired), Ofer Grosskopf, Chaled Kabub, and Ruth Ronnen ruled to strike down the reasonableness law. Only Mintz and Noam Sohlberg argued that the High Court had no authority to annul Basic Laws.
[Featured image: Israelis protested against plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to overhaul the judicial system and in support of the Supreme Court in Jerusalem on Monday, Sept. 11, 2023. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)Ohad Zwigenberg/AP]
