On Tuesday the High Court of Justice delivered a concise message to the government about the Second Authority for Television and Radio. It stressed that elected leaders must follow the law and that public servants who ignore judicial rulings could face personal civil suits.

The ruling came from Supreme Court President Isaac Amit along with Justices Alex Stein and Ruth Ronnen. The panel avoided granting fresh interim measures or resolving the core petitions. It instead highlighted the need to return to fundamental principles under the current conditions.

The justices referenced a 2008 High Court decision that outlined the obligation to respect court judgments.

They quoted that compliance with and respect for judicial decisions form basic foundations for the rule of law in any democratic state. Absent such respect the rule of law weakens social order declines and the gap between lawful governance and disorder narrows to a fine line.

The panel also recalled the earlier distinction between an ordinary citizen who disregards a court order and a state body that does the same.

While citizen noncompliance seriously damages the rule of law the decision noted that defiance by a state authority is even more serious.

When a state body takes the law into its own hands by obeying judicial orders only when convenient it plants the roots of disorder and promotes a climate of arbitrary power the ruling continued.

Elected officials and public employees must follow the law

The decision also drew on a 2025 ruling by Deputy President Noam Sohlberg before applying these ideas to the current case.

These core principles govern both elected officials and public employees who must all operate within legal bounds the court stated.

It added a sharper point for public employees noting that defying judicial decisions could in suitable cases strip them of personal immunity from damage claims.

The ruling followed the cabinet unanimous Sunday declaration that it would not accept decisions approvals appointments or actions by the outgoing Second Authority Council because the government believed the body fell short of the required statutory membership.

This declaration came after the High Court June 17 interim order that halted the government March appointments of a new council and kept the outgoing body in place until a final decision on the petitions.

Attorney-General criticizes cabinet resolution

The government insisted the outgoing council lacked the needed statutory numbers. Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara informed the court that the cabinet resolution represented another serious effort to block judicial decisions and pressure those who wished to obey them.

Government Secretary Yossi Fuchs denied that the cabinet had urged noncompliance and described the resolution as strong criticism of a ruling the government viewed as contrary to the law clear wording. He added that the government would seek legal routes to reverse it.

In its Monday update to the court the Journalists Association labeled the cabinet resolution an unprecedented and serious call to disregard a judicial order. It claimed the move aimed to intimidate sitting council members and investors in the proposed Channel 13 deal to block approval during upcoming council meetings.

The proposed transaction would shift control of Reshet 13 from Len Blavatnik Access Industries to the Merit Spread Foundation backed by hi-tech entrepreneurs led by Wiz co-founder Assaf Rappaport. The deal agreed in March still needs approval from the Second Authority Council.

The association highlighted Justice Minister Yariv Levin remarks at the Israel Hayom conference on Sunday where he warned prospective investors they were relying on what the government saw as an unlawful decision and that the government did not view itself as bound by it. The association argued these comments revealed the resolution sought to stop the transaction and influence a major news outlet during an election period.

The filing also claimed Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi actions against sitting council members aimed to weaken the body and change its makeup while the petitions were still pending.

Karhi replied by citing a Talmudic story about Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai who ordered the shofar sounded in Yavneh on a Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat before a debate on the practice was settled. When others later tried to discuss it he answered that the horn had already been heard in Yavneh.

Karhi adapted the line to the current matter writing that the horn of liberation of the government and the people in Zion from the yoke of the High Court had already sounded suggesting the cabinet had taken a step he believed should not be undone.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called the court and Attorney-General Office a judicial mafia that had turned to extortion by threats. He compared the warning to a protection scheme and asked whether the next step would involve envelopes with bullets sent to government offices.

He added that no one stands above the law neither Isaac Amit nor Gali Baharav-Miara and said the government would defeat this protection scheme at the ballot box.

Levin for his part said the decision showed the low point to which the Supreme Court had fallen. He contrasted it with a statement he attributed to retired Supreme Court justice Aharon Barak that judges have neither sword nor purse and rely only on public trust.

Levin likened the justices to the worst dictators claiming that after losing public trust they now threatened to crush by force those seeking justice. It will not succeed he wrote. Levin urged the justices to reflect on how they reached such a low point and argued that respect for the law and democratic decisions is a duty for every citizen even a Supreme Court judge.

Keshet Neev contributed to this report.