Israel's Supreme Court Invalidates Vital Aspect of Judicial Reform, Potentially Leading to Renewed Discord Amid Ongoing Conflict

Israel's Supreme Court has invalidated a controversial government initiative to restrict the authority of the judiciary, a move that could spark renewed tensions in the country as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confronts the conflict with Hamas in Gaza.

In a close vote of eight to seven, the court determined that the government's modification to the "reasonableness law" should not be upheld. The legislation aimed to diminish the Supreme Court's ability to deem government actions as unreasonable, and was a significant component of a broader initiative to diminish the judiciary's influence that was recently passed by the Knesset, Israel's parliament.

The decision could reignite a passionate and contentious discussion that had consumed Israel in 2023 but was put on hold after the October 7 Hamas attacks. It also has the potential to create divisions within Israel's war cabinet, which includes Netanyahu and two prominent critics of his attempts to reform the judiciary.

The court's ruling stated that it opposed the amendment because it would significantly undermine the fundamental principles of Israel as a democratic state.

The new law, enacted in July, removed the courts' authority to overturn government decisions deemed "unreasonable." Opposition from a large portion of Israel's population, supported by opinion polls, warned that the change would diminish the courts' independence and weaken Israel's democracy. The passage of the law sparked widespread protests, a common occurrence in Israel's cities since Netanyahu's introduction of his judicial agenda, and led to thousands of army reservists threatening to boycott their duties.

Netanyahu's war cabinet saw opposition from two of its members, including Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defense, who publicly opposed the plans in March and was temporarily dismissed before being reinstated. Benny Gantz, the leader of Israel's opposition National Unity party, also led protests earlier in the year.

Furthermore, Israel's allies, such as the United States, expressed concern about the overhaul. US President Joe Biden warned in July that Netanyahu was risking the US-Israeli relationship if the overhaul passed without broad consensus. The amendment was ultimately passed in the Knesset without a single vote from the opposition, who boycotted the vote.

The reasonableness doctrine is not exclusive to Israel's legal system, but is also employed in various other countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. This standard is frequently utilized by courts to assess the constitutionality or legality of legislation, enabling judges to verify the "reasonableness" of decisions made by public officials.

The prime minister and his allies contend that the Supreme Court no longer accurately represents the Israeli people and has overstepped its boundaries. They argue that the proposed changes would address this issue. Critics, however, claim that Netanyahu is pushing for the overhaul in order to protect himself from his corruption trial, where he is accused of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing.

The government bill made changes to one of Israel's Basic Laws, which act as an informal constitution in the absence of a formal one. Prior to the recent ruling, the Supreme Court had never before invalidated a Basic Law or an amendment to one.

In their decision, 12 out of the 15 judges asserted that the court had the power to invalidate a Basic Law in "extreme cases." However, only eight of the 12 judges believed that this particular case constituted an extreme circumstance.

The discussions about Netanyahu's actions were put on hold on October 7th due to Hamas attacks on Israel, leading to the creation of a war cabinet and temporarily halting the internal political divisions in Israel. However, on December 29th, a leaked draft document referencing Monday's ruling reignited the issue.

In response to the leak, Minister of Justice Yariv Levin stated that the Supreme Court should refrain from publishing a controversial ruling during wartime, and Speaker of the Knesset Amir Ohana emphasized that this was not the time to set a new precedent in the country's history. However, the Supreme Court had a legal obligation to release its ruling by January 12, as two retiring justices were required by law to submit their final rulings within three months of stepping down.

The public will closely monitor Netanyahu's upcoming actions, as there is a potential for a constitutional crisis if he pursues the controversial change. Stay tuned for updates on this ongoing development.