Supreme Court of Israel

Supreme Court of Israel. The Supreme Court of Israel, seated in Jerusalem, is the highest judicial body in the State of Israel. It functions primarily as a court of last resort in criminal and civil cases and, uniquely, as a High Court of Justice for direct petitions against government authorities. The Court has played a central role in shaping Israeli law and the nation's democratic character, often engaging with fundamental issues of human rights, national security, and the relationship between state and religion.

History

The Court was established shortly after the Declaration of Independence in 1948, succeeding the judicial system of the British Mandate for Palestine. Its first sitting President was Moshe Smoira, and it initially convened in Tel Aviv before moving to its permanent home in Jerusalem's Givat Ram neighborhood in 1992. The construction of its iconic building, designed by architects Ram Karmi and Ada Karmi-Melamede, was funded by Dorothy de Rothschild. Throughout its history, the Court's jurisprudence has evolved from foundational rulings under figures like Shimon Agranat to its modern activist era, significantly influenced by the "constitutional revolution" initiated by President Aharon Barak following the passage of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in 1992.

Composition and structure

The Supreme Court is composed of fifteen Justices, including the President of the Supreme Court and the Deputy President. Justices are selected by the Judicial Selection Committee, a body that includes Knesset members, Ministers of Justice, other judges, and representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Candidates are typically prominent jurists, such as former Attorneys General, distinguished professors from institutions like Hebrew University, or senior judges from district courts. The Court typically sits in panels of three, but larger panels are convened for cases of exceptional importance. The current acting President is Uzi Vogelman, following the retirement of Esther Hayut.

Jurisdiction and powers

The Court exercises two primary forms of jurisdiction: appellate and original. As the highest court of appeal, it hears appeals from the district courts and, in some instances, from specialized tribunals like the Military Court of Appeals. In its capacity as the High Court of Justice (Bagatz), it exercises original jurisdiction over petitions filed directly against any government body, public authority, or military commander. This power allows it to issue orders such as mandamus, certiorari, and habeas corpus, and to review the constitutionality of Knesset legislation against the Basic Laws of Israel. It also adjudicates electoral disputes and appeals from the Central Elections Committee.

Notable rulings and impact

The Court has issued landmark decisions that have profoundly impacted Israeli society. Key rulings include affirming the rights of Israeli Arab citizens in cases like Ka'adan v. Israel Lands Administration, which barred Jewish National Fund land discrimination. In security matters, it famously placed limits on targeted killings and the use of human shields by the IDF in the Second Intifada. On religious issues, it has compelled the government to recognize Reform and Conservative conversions and intervened in matters of personal status. Other significant cases involve interrogation methods of the Shin Bet, the separation barrier's route, and the drafting of yeshiva students, as seen in the Tal Law litigation.

Controversies and judicial reform

The Court has been a persistent focus of political controversy, criticized by right-wing and religious Zionist parties for its assertive judicial review and perceived judicial activism. Major points of contention include its interventions in settlement policy, occupation law, and religion-state conflicts. This culminated in a sustained campaign for judicial reform led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister of Justice Levin, which proposed laws to curtail the Court's power of judicial review, change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, and limit its ability to invoke the reasonableness doctrine. These proposals sparked massive protests from groups like the Movement for Quality Government and the Bar Association, leading to a historic constitutional crisis and a pivotal ruling in 2023 where the Court struck down a key component of the reform, asserting its authority to invalidate Basic Laws.