Israel entered uncharted constitutional territory on Sunday after the government announced it would not recognize a ruling by the High Court of Justice ordering the reinstatement of the Second Authority for Television and Radio in its previous composition, a move that legal officials described as an unprecedented challenge to the rule of law.
The decision marks the first time an Israeli government has formally declared that it will not comply with a ruling of the country's highest court, raising concerns over the separation of powers and the future balance between the executive and judicial branches.
Government Rejects Court's Authority
The cabinet approved a proposal advanced by Shlomo Karhi and Yariv Levin stating that the government would not recognize decisions taken by the current Second Authority Council, including any approval of the proposed sale of Channel 13 to the so-called "High-Tech Group."
In a statement, the government argued that the High Court's June 17 ruling contradicted the explicit language of the law by allowing the council to continue operating despite falling below the statutory minimum number of members.
"The rule of law binds all branches of government, including the courts," the statement said, adding that a judicial ruling "cannot create authority that does not exist in legislation."
Legal Officials Warn of Constitutional Crisis
Senior legal officials reacted with alarm, describing the government's decision as a historic escalation in the confrontation between the executive and judicial branches.
According to legal sources, the move represents a fundamental departure from long-standing constitutional norms under which all state authorities are bound to implement final court judgments, regardless of political disagreement.
They warned that the decision, combined with ongoing efforts to restructure the office of the Attorney General and alter the judicial appointments system, signals a broader transformation of Israel's constitutional framework.
Concerns Over International Consequences
Legal officials also cautioned that openly refusing to implement a Supreme Court ruling could weaken Israel's standing in international legal forums.
They noted that Israel has repeatedly relied on the principle of complementarity under the Rome Statute to argue that its independent judicial system is capable of investigating alleged violations of international law, including in proceedings before the International Criminal Court.
According to the officials, any perception that the government is disregarding judicial authority could undermine that argument in future international proceedings.
Deputy Attorney General Issues Sharp Warning
During a parallel session of the Knesset Constitution Committee, Deputy Attorney General Dr. Gil Limon warned that the government's decision reflects a broader effort to reduce the authority of legal advisers across government.
He argued that pending legislation splitting the Attorney General's responsibilities would allow governments to disregard binding legal opinions and court rulings whenever they prove politically inconvenient.
Limon said the proposed changes would fundamentally alter the role of government legal advisers in areas ranging from public appointments and conflicts of interest to policing, emergency powers, elections and media regulation.
Court Order Froze Government Plan
The High Court's interim order, issued approximately three weeks ago, suspended the government's attempt to replace the composition of the Second Authority Council while petitions challenging the move remain under judicial review.
In an unusually strongly worded decision, the justices suggested that resignations by council members may have been orchestrated in an attempt to frustrate the judicial process and undermine the court's ability to review the case.
A Defining Test for Israel's Rule of Law
The government's announcement is widely viewed by legal experts as one of the most consequential constitutional developments in Israel's history.
While governments have previously criticized or sought to limit judicial authority, successive administrations have ultimately complied with binding rulings of the Supreme Court.
Legal scholars warn that allowing any government to determine which court judgments it will recognize would fundamentally alter the principle of judicial supremacy in interpreting the law, replacing the rule of law with political discretion and deepening Israel's ongoing constitutional crisis.
Comments