BySARAH BEN-NUN

JULY 27, 2026 15:34

Updated: JULY 27, 2026 17:11

The Knesset informed the High Court of Justice that the revised judicial selection process should not face invalidation merely because justices might prefer the prior setup. It maintained that only profound harm to the democratic fabric of the state could warrant overturning elements of a Basic Law.

The Movement for Quality Government, among the petitioners opposing the measure, countered in a Sunday filing that the Knesset added no fresh facts or legal points and largely restated positions from the prior hearing.

MQG urged the court to finalize its conditional orders, thereby granting the petitions and nullifying the disputed clauses.

The core issue involves an update to Basic Law: The Judiciary plus a related Courts Law change that alters the makeup of the nine-person Judicial Selection Committee and its appointment methods across all judicial tiers.

The Basic Law update passed 67-1 in March 2025 and will activate with the next Knesset term. Nine petitions are under joint review.

The Knesset's four-part response

Supplementary arguments arrived on July 22 following an 11-justice panel query the day before on whether the revised system would heighten judicial reliance on political favor and erode independence.

The court issued conditional orders seeking reasons why the law should stand, focusing on whether the shifts undermine Israel's democratic core enough to permit intervention despite Basic Law status.

The Knesset structured its reply around four areas: committee makeup, lower court picks, Supreme Court selections, and a deadlock resolution tool for top court vacancies.

Under the present system, the committee includes three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two MKs, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association.

The revised system would drop the IBA delegates and substitute two qualified jurists, one chosen by coalition MKs and one by opposition MKs.

This would result in four coalition-aligned members including one jurist, three Supreme Court justices, and two opposition-aligned members including one jurist.

The Knesset listed four primary motives for removing IBA delegates: worries over lawyers facing conflicts when advancing judges they appear before, the IBA's political engagements, a prior bribery suspicion case involving a bar delegate, and a goal to boost elected officials' role in selections.

Justices queried during the hearing why swapping IBA delegates for other lawyers would resolve conflicts. The IBA noted its nationwide data on judicial performance valuable for promotions.

Knesset: Basic Law should not be invalidated over system preference

The Knesset replied that IBA delegates face unique professional conflicts as they are chosen by lawyers with direct stakes in court outcomes.

It conceded the IBA holds useful data but noted it could provide input without seats or voting rights.

Fundamentally, the Knesset said the court posed the incorrect query by examining whether IBA input helps or if the new panel outperforms the old.

The true test, it said, is whether dropping the IBA and elevating elected voices erodes Israel's democratic essence.

A Basic Law ought not to fall simply because the court favors the old system, the Knesset argued, as authority over constitutional frameworks rests with the Knesset in its constituent role.

The law would also reduce the Supreme Court selection threshold from seven of nine votes to five.

The five-vote majority must include one coalition and one opposition member but no longer needs any Supreme Court justice support.

The Knesset said the seven-vote rule grants justices collective veto power over colleagues. The update instead demands coalition-opposition accord.

Justices last month voiced worry that candidates might appear tied to political sides and affect lower court judges seeking advancement.

Justice Alex Stein wondered if ambitious district judges would seek to please politicians, while President Isaac Amit cautioned future justices might bear a political marker.

The Knesset noted such associations already occur under the current system and in other high posts.

Judges must separate from appointers and rule independently regardless of whether supporters were politicians, lawyers, or peers, it said.

It dismissed claims that added political input would erode public trust.

While petitioners argued politicization harms confidence, the Knesset said many supporting lawmakers viewed trust as already damaged by justices selecting their successors.

The Knesset added that even if professional standards dipped, lawmakers could weigh that against gains in trust and bench diversity.

It stressed this remained hypothetical and not an admission of lower standards.

Under the update, magistrate and district court picks still need five votes including at least one judge, one coalition member, and one opposition member.

Petitioners warned each bloc's veto could stall the panel and leave posts empty.

The Knesset recognized deadlock risks but called them the cost of wider consensus. It said paralysis forecasts stay speculative and cannot justify striking a Basic Law pre-operation.

The law adds a fallback for one use per Knesset term if two Supreme Court spots stay vacant long-term.

Coalition and opposition sides would each offer candidate lists for others to pick from. If no choice occurs in time, list submitters could select.

The Knesset noted drawbacks but argued indefinite vacancies prove worse.

MQG stated Sunday that none of the points altered the case foundations and no further reply was needed.

The matter returns to the 11-justice panel for decision unless more input or another hearing is sought.