The High Court of Justice appeared deeply skeptical of Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s refusal to cooperate with Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, pressing Levin’s attorney over whether the minister was effectively attempting to decide who heads the judiciary.
The hearing was held after the court required Levin to explain why he should not be ordered to work with Amit on judicial administrative appointments that, by law, require cooperation between the justice minister and the Supreme Court president.
The case is now at the stage in which the court is considering whether to issue a binding order requiring Levin to act.
At the center of the dispute are appointments that do not go through the Judicial Selection Committee but require agreement between the justice minister and the Supreme Court president: court presidents and vice presidents, senior registrars, acting judges, and judges or retired judges to parole committees.
Levin has refused to recognize Amit as Supreme Court president, arguing through his privately retained attorney, Yoram Sheftel, that the position is vacant.
Levin refuses to recognize Amit as Supreme Court president
He has claimed that Amit’s appointment is invalid because the Judicial Selection Committee session in which he was chosen was held without the required quorum, because Levin did not publish Amit’s appointment in the official gazette, and because Levin did not sign Amit’s appointment certificate alongside President Isaac Herzog.
Levin has refused to recognize Amit as Supreme Court president, arguing through his privately retained attorney, Yoram Sheftel, that the position is currently vacant.
He has claimed that Amit’s appointment is invalid because the Judicial Selection Committee session in which he was chosen was held without the required quorum, because Levin did not publish Amit’s appointment in the official gazette, and because Levin did not sign Amit’s appointment certificate alongside President Isaac Herzog.
Justice Ofer Grosskopf noted that other appointments made during the same committee meeting, including that of Justice Noam Sohlberg as deputy Supreme Court president, were published by Levin and treated as valid.
If Levin’s quorum argument is correct, Grosskopf asked, would that not mean the minister knowingly published appointments he believed were illegal?
Representing the attorney-general’s position, attorney Omri Epstein told the court that Levin’s refusal to cooperate with Amit has no legal basis and that the appointment itself did not depend on Levin’s ceremonial signature.
Epstein said Levin’s proposed alternatives, including steps that would bypass Amit or rely on Sohlberg instead, were unlawful because they would allow the justice minister to take powers assigned by law to the Supreme Court president.
Dozens of judicial administrative appointments have been delayed
The sharpest exchange came when Sheftel suggested that, as a practical solution, Amit could transfer the relevant powers to Sohlberg.
Grosskopf responded that the heart of the case was the separation of powers.
Describing Levin’s position, Grosskopf said, “The justice minister will be able to determine who stands at the head of the judicial branch.”
“That is separation of powers according to the minister,” he added.
“The justice minister will hold the functioning ability of the judiciary by the throat unless it accepts his choice of Sohlberg as the one who stands at its head,” Grosskopf summarized.
Sheftel denied that this was Levin’s position, but he said that Amit should transfer his powers to Sohlberg in order to resolve the deadlock.
According to Kasher, Levin was effectively saying: “I created a catastrophe, so save the judicial system, the hostage, by giving up and doing what I want.”
Sheftel answered, “You understood correctly,” adding that after a year and a half of deadlock, the parties should be practical.
Kasher replied that when one side causes serious damage and then demands that the other side be “practical” by accepting its terms, “there are names for that, and out of respect for the justice minister I will not say them.”
The broader significance of the case goes beyond the personal dispute between Levin and Amit. Dozens of judicial administrative appointments have been delayed, including 27 vice president positions, according to the state’s representative.