High Court justices questioned Wednesday whether the Courts Administration’s instructions adequately protect lawyers from courthouse harassment, pressing for clearer rules on conduct that guards should halt and how those rules are communicated to the public.
The case concerns lawyers representing Palestinians and human rights groups who say right-wing activists follow them through the Supreme Court’s corridors, film them at close range, and accuse them of supporting terrorism. The petitioners argue that preventing physical attacks alone is insufficient: Lawyers must be able to prepare for hearings, consult privately with clients, and represent them without intimidation.
Justices Dafna Barak-Erez, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Yechiel Kasher examined possible protections, including clearly defined areas where lawyers could work without interference. No ruling was delivered during the hearing, and a decision is due to be sent to the parties.
Guards instructed to intervene against harassment, humiliation, intimidation of lawyers
The Court’s Administration rejected the claim that its protection policy warrants judicial intervention. In an updated response submitted ahead of the hearing, it said security preparations had been strengthened, and guards were explicitly instructed to intervene against the filming aimed at harassing, humiliating, or intimidating lawyers.
During Wednesday’s hearing, state attorney Hadas Eran condemned interference with lawyers and said that courthouses were not places for demonstrations. She maintained that the instructions were implemented through training and briefings, with guards exercising judgment according to the circumstances.
The justices questioned whether that approach provided guards with sufficiently concrete guidance.
When Eran referred to a summary of a June 2023 meeting as the written basis for the instructions, Barak-Erez questioned whether it amounted to a comprehensive set of rules and asked when further work on instructions would be completed.
“These are very general instructions,” Canfy-Steinitz said, questioning whether they told a guard what to do in a particular situation.
Barak-Erez also asked how many people had been removed from courthouses over the past year for disturbing public order. Eran said she would have to obtain the figure, but the discussion exposed a further question: how visitors could be expected to comply with restrictions that were not clearly published. Barak-Erez used the example of a distance limit on filming, asking how someone would know they had breached an unwritten rule.
Filed in 2024 by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, HaMoked, Gisha, Yesh Din, and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, the petition challenges the policy of the Courts Administration and its director, Judge Tzachi Uziel.
No proposal was adopted during the hearing
The organizations, represented by attorneys Michael Sfard and Einat Gayer, proposed confining protests to a designated area inside the courthouse. Sfard argued that lawyers should not have to retreat to a separate room to work undisturbed.
The justices explored whether clearer protections for lawyers’ personal space would suffice or whether part of the lobby should be designated free of filming and harassment. They also questioned the scope of guards’ legal powers. No proposal was adopted during the hearing.
In a written update filed ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, the petitioners described confrontations during hearings concerning humanitarian aid to Gaza, prison conditions, punitive home demolitions, and other contested policies.
The update identified activists from Im Tirtzu in several incidents and argued that repeated involvement by the same individuals calls for measures to prevent further harassment.
Among the most serious allegations is an incident from March 30, 2026, during a hearing over displaced Palestinians’ return to refugee camps in the northern West Bank. According to the petitioners, an activist followed lawyers after they left the courtroom while the justices examined classified material, then violently pushed Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) attorney Oded Feller as he tried to enter another courtroom.
The filing said footage was provided to the court’s chief secretary and the incident was brought to the panel’s attention. Feller submitted an affidavit supporting the account.
The petitioners also described an October 29, 2025, hearing concerning Red Cross visits to detention facilities, after which a court security officer escorted lawyers and association staff out of the building. They said that the group had to crouch behind bushes while awaiting transportation to avoid attracting the hostile crowd.
These incidents, they argued, demonstrate the inadequacy of a policy that leaves lawyers retreating while those harassing them remain free to move around.
The dispute followed complaints dating back to 2020. Instructions developed after the June 2023 meeting with Sfard treated intrusion into lawyers’ personal space, curses, and incitement to violence as disturbances requiring intervention. The administration subsequently said guards had been instructed to maintain a three-meter distance to protect lawyers’ personal space.
Its December 2024 response defended the balance between lawyers’ safety, freedom of expression, and public access, and it pointed to a Bar Association room available for private work.
In an update submitted on Sunday, the administration cited additional training, advance planning for sensitive hearings, and inspections that it said found no departures from instructions. An internal directive clarifying responsibilities and coordination remains under review.
That update also cited a December 2025 Supreme Court decision permitting advance restrictions on courtroom attendance where serious disruption is reasonably anticipated, alongside live-streaming or screening in another courtroom.
Wednesday’s hearing ended with the practical questions unresolved: whether the existing instructions provide sufficient protection, whether clearer written rules are needed, and whether parts of the courthouse should be set aside to allow lawyers to work without interference.