High Court Advances Hearing on Attorney General's Dismissal Amid Government Defiance

 In a dramatic escalation of Israel’s ongoing constitutional crisis, the High Court of Justice unanimously decided today to advance the hearing on the government's attempt to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, despite the government’s refusal to file a legal response to the petitions against her removal.

Originally scheduled for later this week, the hearing was postponed by the government’s non-cooperation, prompting the Court to issue a conditional order — a step typically taken after a hearing — effectively demanding that the government justify the unprecedented move.

In an accompanying recommendation, the justices urged the government to reverse the dismissal and follow the legal framework for transferring a legal advisor, including review by the Grunis Committee, as required by law.

Government Boycott Sparks Judicial Response

The government's decision to ignore the Court and skip filing a response was interpreted as an act of deliberate contempt, further fueling concerns about the erosion of judicial norms.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, a central figure in the effort to oust the Attorney General, reportedly insisted that the Attorney General's Office represent his personal stance, rather than that of the state. When this was rejected, the ministry simply chose to boycott the hearing.

Legal experts and commentators have described the move as one of the most critical confrontations in Israeli legal history, with some calling it a "constitutional breaking point."

Beyond One Dismissal

While the case focuses on the dismissal of a single legal figure, observers stress that it represents a much broader clash — a battle over the rule of law, democratic checks and balances, and the future structure of Israeli governance.

"This is not about one person in a senior position," said one constitutional scholar. "This is about whether Israel remains a state governed by law — or by the will of a single ruling faction."

An 84-page internal document compiled by Justice Minister Levin — described by some as an "indictment" against Baharav-Miara — includes criticism that she failed to criminally prosecute public figures such as Ehud Barak, Moshe Ya’alon, Moshe Lador, and Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer.

Critics warn that prosecuting political opponents on such grounds signals a turn toward authoritarianism, likening it to regimes where power transitions are accompanied by retribution and show trials.

A Dual Strategy

The government’s approach appears to be guided by two underlying ideologies:

1. Dismantling “deep state” institutions — including the judiciary, media, academia, and cultural organizations — accused by coalition leaders of harboring unelected, left-wing power.

2. Redefining democracy as parliamentary majority rule, rather than a balance between powers. “We have 68 MKs — that is the will of the people,” has become a repeated justification by coalition lawmakers.

This philosophy, critics argue, overlooks the fundamental principles of liberal democracy, including judicial oversight, minority rights, and legal equality.

The Role of the Attorney General

The Attorney General serves as a legal checkpoint on government power — ensuring that military, budgetary, and civil decisions are made within the bounds of the law. Removing the office’s independence is widely seen as the removal of a vital democratic safeguard.

The current coalition’s repeated friction with Baharav-Miara — who has refused to rubber-stamp several controversial policies — is seen as the primary motive behind her dismissal.

"The government demands not just legal advice, but legal obedience," one senior legal figure said. "The aim is to replace the advisor with someone politically loyal — and legally pliant."

A Pattern of Institutional Overreach

Baharav-Miara’s potential removal follows a pattern: previous shakeups, including the abrupt dismissal of the Shin Bet head, are now viewed as preludes to more sweeping institutional changes.

Critics argue that key ministries are being weaponized to reshape the system:

• Education Minister Yoav Kish is accused of erasing democratic principles from textbooks.

• Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi is leading efforts to curtail independent media.

• National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has pushed for harsh crackdowns on anti-government protests.

• Finance and Justice Ministries are pursuing laws that weaken judicial independence and enable selective enforcement.

Constitutional Crisis or Regime Change?

The confrontation between the Court and the government over Baharav-Miara is being widely described as a turning point, with some commentators going as far as to label it a “coup d’état in progress.”

“This is not about governance. This is about the destruction of democratic rule,” said a senior academic. “We are witnessing an attempt to strip the legal system of its ability to constrain power.”

Public discourse is now increasingly focused on who interprets the law — the Attorney General or the elected officials themselves.

Levin and others argue that legal advice has been politicized and that their elected mandate gives them the moral right to reshape the judiciary. However, the contradiction is stark: those accusing the Attorney General of political bias are the same individuals overseeing her dismissal.

What’s Next: A Fateful Hearing Ahead

The High Court is expected to schedule the rescheduled hearing within days. Legal experts suggest that the conditional order places significant pressure on the government to either comply or formally reject the Court’s authority — a move that would trigger an unprecedented constitutional showdown.

The Court has made clear that it views the proper dismissal process — via the Grunis Committee — as the only legitimate legal pathway. Whether the government chooses to comply, ignore, or confront the judiciary will define not only the Attorney General’s fate but the future of Israel’s rule of law.