High Court justices on Thursday sharply questioned Justice Minister Yariv Levin over his refusal to cooperate with Supreme Court President Isaac Amit on a series of administrative judicial appointments, warning that the ongoing impasse risks impairing core services to the public and further deepening an already acute shortage of judges across Israel’s courts.
Later on Thursday, the court issued a conditional order instructing Levin to explain why he has not acted in coordination with Amit where required to carry out statutory judicial appointments, including the naming of court presidents and deputy presidents, the appointment of registrars, the designation of retired judges to serve on parole boards, and the appointment of associate judges.
Under the court’s timetable, Levin must submit a sworn affidavit responding to the order by March 15, while the remaining parties may file their principal arguments by March 22. A hearing on the opposition to the conditional order is expected to take place in the first half of April.
The hearing was held in response to a petition by the Zulat Institute, which is seeking an order compelling Levin to engage with Amit in order to advance routine appointments within the judiciary, including the naming of district court presidents and deputy presidents, the appointment of retired judges to parole boards, and the installation of additional acting judges to address mounting caseloads.
At the center of the dispute is Levin’s contention that Amit’s appointment as president of the Supreme Court is not legally valid, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not signed a confirmation of the appointment, and it has not been published in the official government gazette.
In a response submitted to the court on Wednesday, Levin argued that, in the absence of these steps, “there is no president of the Supreme Court” with whom he can be said to be refusing to cooperate.
The State Attorney’s Office, in a supplementary filing, rejected that position, writing that the minister’s continued non-cooperation with the head of the judicial branch “constitutes an ongoing harm to the foundational structures of the State of Israel’s system of governance” and is already affecting members of the public whose ability to exercise their legal rights depends on the proper functioning of the courts.
During the hearing, Justice Ofer Grosskopf questioned Levin’s legal representative, attorney Yoram Sheftel, on the practical consequences of the minister’s position. “A court without a president is like a hospital without a director,” Grosskopf said.
“The situation in which the minister does not provide a substantive answer as to why he is not exercising his authority – and says it is because he refuses to speak with Isaac Amit – is not an acceptable response.”
Grosskopf also raised concerns about the impact of delayed appointments on ordinary court users, asking whether the minister’s constituents would be satisfied to learn that their cases were being heard more slowly due to an absence of acting judges or unfilled senior administrative roles within the system.
Levin’s refusal to work with Amit freezes key administrative processes
Justice Alex Stein, for his part, pointed to the potential operational consequences in the district courts, noting that the absence of authorized judicial officeholders could affect time-sensitive proceedings requiring senior approval.
The petitioners argued that Levin’s refusal to recognize Amit – or to work with him even on appointments unrelated to the composition of the Supreme Court itself – has effectively frozen key administrative processes that require joint approval from the justice minister and the court president. As a result, they said, positions across the judiciary have remained unfilled, increasing burdens on sitting judges and delaying proceedings for litigants.
Levin, who was granted separate legal representation with the approval of Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, described the petition as an attempted “regime coup,” noting that one of the remedies sought would involve transferring his statutory authorities to another minister.
Thursday’s hearing took place separately from an earlier petition in which the court ordered Levin to justify his continued refusal to convene the Judicial Selection Committee to vote on new judicial appointments, a step he has resisted as part of a broader effort to restructure the committee’s composition through legislation advanced under the government’s judicial reform agenda.
According to the State Attorney’s Office, cooperation between the justice minister and the Supreme Court president is required in the coming months for the appointment of district court presidents in the Central and Beersheba districts, as well as up to 10 positions on parole boards between March and July, 14 acting judges, 21 deputy presidents, and two additional court presidents by the end of the year.