Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara warned on Sunday that a proposed amendment to the government’s rules of procedure would strip the cabinet of binding constraints, enabling it to adopt decisions “in violation of the law,” including discriminatory budget allocations and abuse of governmental power during an election period.
“The government is cancelling the restrictions that bind it so that it can act contrary to the law and legal norms,” Baharav-Miara said. “The proposal is unlawful.”
The statement was issued alongside a detailed legal opinion authored by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Gil Limon, which sets out the legal and constitutional basis for the attorney-general’s position and concludes that there is a legal impediment to adopting the proposal.
According to Limon’s opinion, the common denominator of the proposed amendments is that they would fundamentally alter the functioning of the government, formally enabling it to operate without legal advice - both in the approval of cabinet decisions and in advancing primary and secondary legislation.
Each amendment, he wrote, and certainly their cumulative effect, would undermine the propriety, efficiency, and professionalism of government work and open the door to unlawful decisions.
Cabinet decisions have far-reaching consequences for the public
Cabinet decisions adopted at regular government meetings, the opinion stresses, have far-reaching consequences for the public, touching on core areas of life including security, health, welfare, and the allocation of public funds. Against that backdrop, Limon warned that Israel has for some time been witnessing a “severe disruption of the government’s working methods,” marked by unripe proposals, last-minute items raised during cabinet meetings without urgency, and initiatives advanced without factual or legal foundations - often in disregard of professional assessments and legal advice, in contravention of the law.
The proposal under discussion, he cautioned, would exacerbate and entrench this phenomenon, causing serious harm to the public and “opening a very wide door to unlawful government action,” misuse of governmental authority, and improper use of state budgets.
One of the central flaws identified in the opinion is the absence of any professional foundation for the proposal. According to Limon, neither the cabinet secretary nor relevant legal professionals were involved in drafting the amendment, and the legal review process that began only after the proposal was transferred to the Attorney-General’s Office was never completed.
Substantive legal comments were rejected, no meaningful dialogue was conducted, and the proposal was brought forward without the comprehensive staff work required for a change of this magnitude.
The opinion warns that the proposal seeks, in practice, to render core elements of the legal advisory system optional, allowing ministers to advance cabinet decisions or legislation without written legal opinions, or to treat such opinions as advisory only.
This approach, Limon wrote, directly contradicts entrenched Supreme Court jurisprudence, under which the Attorney-General’s legal opinions represent the law for the government, and the Attorney-General serves as the authorized interpreter of the law unless and until a court rules otherwise.
In effect, the opinion argues, the proposal would de facto implement legislative initiatives currently pending in the Knesset aimed at splitting and weakening the Attorney-General’s role - but through a regulatory amendment rather than primary legislation.
Limon further warned that the proposal is incompatible with the High Court of Justice ruling that invalidated the government’s attempt to dismiss Baharav-Miara. The justice minister’s March 2025 letter proposing a vote of no confidence cited, among other things, her involvement in cabinet decisions and government legislation - precisely the areas targeted by the proposed amendment.
A-G lawfully remains in office, dismissal is void
In that ruling, the High Court held that the Attorney-General lawfully remains in office, that the dismissal decision was void, and that any unilateral action altering her status, powers, or methods of work in connection with the attempted dismissal “does not comport with the judgment.” The current proposal, Limon concluded, violates that directive.
While the legal defects exist at all times, the opinion emphasizes that they are particularly acute given the timing: more than three years into the government’s term and months ahead of an election period, when heightened safeguards are required to prevent the misuse of governmental power for objectives not derived from the general public interest.
The accelerated promotion of the amendment, Limon warned, raises concerns that it is intended to weaken institutional checks and balances through a fast-track regulatory route, after similar legislative efforts failed.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel welcomed the attorney-general’s position, arguing that the proposal represents an indirect attempt to neutralize the legal advisory system after the government failed to dismiss the attorney-general outright.
“A government that failed to fire the attorney general directly is now trying to circumvent her in a roundabout way,” the organization said in a statement, accusing the coalition of seeking to advance decisions and legislation without legal review or oversight.
According to the group, the deputy attorney-general’s opinion makes clear that the proposal lacks legal foundation, contradicts the High Court’s ruling on the attorney-general’s dismissal, and constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law and principles of good governance.
“Instead of strengthening the government’s work, the amendment opens the door to corruption,” the statement said, calling on the government to abandon the proposal and respect the rule of law.