Israel's High Court Of Justice Rolled Up Their Sleeves And Made A Point Against Their Own Government

 Nadene Goldfoot                                        

The Supreme Court of Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-President Reuven Rivlin, 2015.  The Supreme Court in Jerusalem is the highest court of Israel and the final court of appeals. The Court consists of 15 Justices and two Registrars.

 The head of the Supreme Court and of the whole judicial system is the President of the Supreme Court.  Justice Esther Hayut served in this position. Esther Hayut (Hebrew: אֶסְתֵּר חַיּוּת; born 16 October 1953) is an Israeli jurist who served as president of the Supreme Court of Israel from October 2017 to October 2023, and as Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel from 2004 to 2023. She is considered to have been a progressive and liberal justice in the Supreme Court of Israel, playing a key role in many landmark cases throughout her tenure.  Esther "Esti" Avni was born in Herzliya, Israel, in the Shaviv ma'abara (today the Yad HaTesha neighborhood) to Yehuda and Yehudit Avni, who were both Romanian Holocaust survivors.

  צחק עמית                                     Isaac Amit    In February 2025, he was appointed President of the Supreme Court.  

Isaac Amit was born in Israel in 1958 so is 68. In 1976 he graduated  from Zeitlin High School in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. From 1976 to 1980 he served in the Israeli Defense Forces. In 1985 he completed his law studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and obtained his LL.B. summa cum laude. From 1984 to 1986 he interned at a law firm and was subsequently admitted to the Israeli Bar. During the years 1987 to 1997 he practiced law. In 1997 he was appointed Judge of the Haifa Magistrates’ Court. In 2001 he was appointed Acting Judge of the Haifa District Court, and in 2002 he was permanently appointed Judge of that court. In October 2009 he was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. As of October 7, 2024, he serves as Acting President of the Supreme Court.

Under Section 20(b) of Basic Law: the Judiciary: "A rule established in the Supreme Court shall bind every court, save the Supreme Court". This section expresses the principle of binding precedent (vis-à-vis lower courts) and the principle that the Supreme Court is not bound by its precedents and can deviate from them.

Yes, the High Court of Justice is like the USA's Supreme Court, and is not a separate institution, but rather a specialized capacity in which the Supreme Court of Israel sits.

Dual Roles of the Supreme Court

Highest Appellate Court: It handles appeals (both criminal and civil) coming down from lower district courts.
High Court of Justice (Bagatz): It acts as a court of first instance for unique legal challenges, specifically hearing direct petitions from citizens against government ministries, state authorities, and public servants regarding administrative fairness and the legality of state actions.
A new Democratic government, Israel,  has the toughest Supreme Court that demands sticking to the rules.  
The Israeli government argued that Army Radio (Galei Tzahal) broadcasted divisive, political content that harmed national morale and the war effort, with officials claiming enemies misinterpreted its news coverage as official military positions. They also complained that a military-run station should not feature civilian political programming or hold an unfair commercial advantage.
Israel’s High Court of Justice unanimously overturned the government’s decision to shut down Army Radio, ruling that the move was based on an improper and invalid consideration. 

Judges wrote that the decision was driven by “the dissatisfaction of the decision-makers with the fact that the broadcasts, in their view, contradicted their positions.” 

At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the government lacked the authority to decide Army Radio’s future or that closing the station would necessarily require primary legislation. 

Justice Kasher wrote: “It cannot be accepted that a holder of governmental authority should decide that because a broadcaster’s words are not to his liking, the broadcaster’s ‘microphone should be shut down'.

 A government that acts in this way acts in a blatantly undemocratic manner, because the cornerstone on which every democratic government rests is the recognition that the government may not use its power to silence those whose opinions are not to its liking.”

This youthful Supreme Court is still living up to Democratic expectations better than many older Democracies have done.  We expect it to continue doing its good work in keeping every-one on their toes and committed to a real democracy as they are now.  The military may have made a very valid point, but need to find better ways of educating people of their position, the damage they feel that is being done, Meetings of education, of explanation would be the best route to go, don't you think?  

 silence those whose opinions are not to its liking.”