Four former Supreme Court presidents and former acting Supreme Court president Uzi Fogelman warned on Monday that the government’s decision not to recognize actions taken by the outgoing Second Authority Council amounted, in their view, to a call to disobey court orders.
In a joint statement first reported by Channel 13, former Supreme Court presidents Aharon Barak, Dorit Beinisch, Asher Grunis, and Esther Hayut, together with Fogelman, wrote that “failure to obey court orders and decisions is the final nail in democracy’s coffin.”
They said the move would “completely disrupt” Israel’s governmental and legal order, lead to anarchy, and concentrate governmental authority in the hands of a single body.
The five called on the government to state “the obvious”: that court judgments and decisions must be obeyed.
Channel 13 also reported that Bank of Israel said High Court decisions were binding on all state institutions and that the government’s announcement harmed business certainty.
Zohar says Netanyahu will comply with High Court
Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar said on Monday that he expected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to comply with the High Court of Justice’s decision in the dispute over the Second Authority for Television and Radio.
“As I know him, the prime minister will comply with the High Court decision,” Zohar said in an interview with Kan Reshet Bet. “There will not be a constitutional crisis.”
Zohar said that such a crisis would mark “the beginning of a slippery slope,” while maintaining that the government believed the court had acted contrary to the law.
“We told the High Court that its conduct was against the law,” he said. “We did not create a constitutional crisis, but asked to prevent one. High Court decisions must be obeyed - but we are saying that we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis.”
Government has 'already crossed a red line'
Retired Supreme Court justice Hanan Melcer offered a far sharper assessment in a separate Kan Reshet Bet interview, saying the government had “already crossed the red line” by declaring that it would not recognize the court’s decision.
Melcer said the government’s declaration that it would not recognize the court’s decision harmed the checks and balances among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. He added that a free press also served as a democratic check.
He likened the situation to the period before October 7, 2023, when the government’s judicial overhaul was at the center of mass public protests. Melcer also argued that the move was connected to the coming elections, warning that normalizing noncompliance with court decisions could eventually extend to decisions of the Central Elections Committee.
Government rejects court's interpretation
The comments came after the government unanimously approved a proposal by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi on Sunday declaring that it would not recognize any decision, approval, appointment, or action taken by the Second Authority Council while it did not meet the statutory threshold set by law.
The government also said it would not hear reliance claims or accept a fait accompli from media-market actors based on actions taken by a council that it said did not meet the threshold established by the legislature.
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara told the High Court in an urgent submission that the decision was “another serious attempt to thwart judicial decisions.”
Government Secretary Yossi Fuchs later rejected the characterization that the cabinet had called for noncompliance, saying its resolution was sharp criticism of a ruling that the government believed contradicted the law’s explicit wording. He said the government would use lawful avenues to challenge the decision.
The dispute stems from a June 17 interim order issued by a High Court panel headed by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, alongside Justices Alex Stein and Ruth Ronnen.
The court froze the government’s March decisions to appoint a new Second Authority Council and ruled that the outgoing council would continue to serve, in its existing composition, until a final ruling on petitions challenging the appointments.
Appointments were rushed, politically motivated, and likely to harm press freedom
The Second Authority regulates Israel’s commercial television and regional radio broadcasters. The dispute has become part of a broader battle over Karhi’s proposed communications reform and the future structure of media regulation.
Petitioners argued that the government’s appointments to the replacement council were politically motivated. The government has maintained that the outgoing council fell below the statutory minimum after several members resigned.
The court said it had a “heavy suspicion” that the resignations were intended to thwart the proceedings and impair its ability to examine the petitions. It ruled that the departing members would not be counted for purposes of calculating whether the outgoing council could continue functioning.
The High Court has not yet issued a final ruling on the legality of the government’s March appointments.