Supreme Court Justice Alex Stein on Sunday issued a temporary order freezing the activity of the new Second Authority for Television and Radio Council, barring it from convening or making decisions until further notice - after the state again asked for more time to respond to a series of petitions challenging the government’s appointments to the media regulator.
In a terse and unusually sharp decision, Stein wrote that, from the court’s perspective, the April 30 deadline for the state to file its response - already extended more than once after what he described as “great, and perhaps even excessive,” patience by the court - was indeed the final deadline.
The new extension requests, submitted on Sunday, “are not acceptable to me at all,” Stein wrote, adding that this was the case regardless of the petitioners’ positions.
The decision immediately halted the work of the council appointed by the government in March, including the appointment of Dr. Yifat Ben-Hay Segev as chairwoman, and of attorney Kinneret Barashi and Dr. Haim Shine as council members.
Petitions were filed by the Union of Journalists in Israel
The Second Authority regulates Israel’s commercial television and regional radio broadcasters, including the news companies of channels 12 and 13. Its council, therefore, holds authority over one of the most politically sensitive regulatory arenas in the country: the body that oversees commercial news broadcasters, issues regulatory decisions, and sits at the intersection between government, media, and freedom of the press.
The petitions were filed by the Union of Journalists in Israel, the Israel Television News Company, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Press Council, and the Association for the Preservation of Legal Values. They argue, in different formulations, that the government’s decision was rushed, procedurally flawed, politically tainted, and liable to harm press freedom and the independence of media regulation.
Stein did not rule on the merits of those claims; his order means that, for now, the appointments remain under judicial review while the council itself is prevented from acting.
The key point in Sunday’s decision was not only the missed deadline. Stein also pointed to a legal statute that states that the council’s existence, powers, and decisions are not harmed merely because a seat is vacant, or because of a defect in the appointment or continued service of one of its members. Against that background, he noted that the council, in its current composition, had been convening and making decisions.
“Accordingly,” Stein ruled, “a temporary order is hereby issued prohibiting the convening of the Second Authority for Television and Radio Council and the making of its decisions - until another decision is issued.”
He also ordered the petitions transferred to a three-justice panel for hearing as soon as possible, subject to the court’s schedule.
Following Stein’s order, Yesh Atid MK Shelly Tal Meron sent an urgent letter to Knesset legal adviser Sagit Afik, asking her to prevent Ben-Hay Segev from participating in meetings of the Knesset’s special committee on the Broadcasting Law, chaired by Likud MK Galit Distel Atbaryan.
Tal Meron argued that Ben-Hay Segev no longer had authority to act as a representative of either the Second Authority or its council, present an official position on their behalf, or participate in Knesset discussions in that capacity.
The legal fight began before the government approved the appointments.
According to the Union of Journalists in Israel’s petition, the agenda for a cabinet meeting scheduled for March 24 was published only 48 hours earlier, on March 22, and without the accompanying materials, which were circulated to ministers only the following day.
The union argued that in that meeting, the government approved the appointments - despite a written opinion by Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon warning that the legal review had not been completed and that the full factual basis required for the decision was not before the ministers.
Limon wrote at the time that several complaints regarding some of the candidates had been sent to the appointments committee, but the committee had not yet responded to them. That response, he said, was necessary for the Justice Ministry to examine the claims and formulate a legal position regarding the appointments.
He also raised the issue of adequate Arab representation on the council, noting that the outgoing council had included two Arab members, while the proposed new council included only one. At the same time, a separate petition by Rima Kamal, whose candidacy for the council had been rejected by the appointments committee, was still pending before the High Court.
The union argued that there was no urgency justifying the government’s speed, since the outgoing council could continue serving until a new one was lawfully appointed. In its petition, it asked the court to cancel the appointments, determine that the government decision harmed freedom of expression and the press, and freeze the entry of Ben-Hay Segev, Barashi, and Shine into office.
The government approved the appointments nevertheless.
The case later widened into a separate conflict-of-interest question involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. Ben-Hay Segev was a prosecution witness in Netanyahu’s criminal trial in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla affair. After she deviated from her police statement during testimony, prosecutors sought to have her declared a hostile witness, and the court allowed her police statements to be submitted.
Following the government vote, Yesh Atid MKs Karine Elharrar and Tal Meron asked Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara to examine Netanyahu’s role in the cabinet discussion and vote approving Ben-Hay Segev’s appointment. They argued that his conflict-of-interest arrangement barred him from involvement in matters touching witnesses in his criminal trial.
Limon later responded that Netanyahu should have been barred from any involvement in the decision on Ben-Hay Segev’s appointment, and that by participating in the discussion and vote, he had acted in a conflict of interest.
That finding did not itself cancel the appointment. But it added a second layer to the legal questions now before the court: whether the council was appointed through a lawful administrative process, and whether the prime minister’s participation in the vote infected that process.
The petitions also challenge the appointments of Barashi and Shine, arguing that both have expressed political affinity with Netanyahu and hostility toward the media bodies the council is meant to regulate. The petitioners argued that such public positions raise concerns about bias, conflicts of interest, and the politicization of a regulator whose role requires independence from the government and the broadcasters it oversees.
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi has defended the appointments and framed the new council as part of his broader media policy, saying when the appointments were promoted that the government was bringing in a responsible, diverse, and experienced council that would prepare the market for a new era and reduce regulation ahead of his planned broadcast reform.
But the petitioners have presented the move as part of a broader campaign by the government, and particularly by Karhi, against independent media bodies and press freedom. The Union of Journalists in Israel’s petition pointed to other pending proceedings involving government action toward media outlets, including the government decision regarding Haaretz and TheMarker, the proposed communications legislation, and the move to shut down Army Radio.
For now, the High Court has not canceled the appointments, but Stein’s order changed the immediate reality in that the council now cannot meet, vote or issue decisions. The state’s repeated delays have run into a hard judicial wall, and the petitions will now move to a three-justice panel, with the regulator frozen in place until the court decides otherwise.