Israel’s Supreme Court escalates its review of the Judicial Selection overhaul, assigning the case to all 11 justices and delaying hearings to June.

Debating the heart of the judicial reform legislation – the overhaul of the Judicial Selection Committee – will be the entire 11-justice bench of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Isaac Amit, Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Dafna Barak-Erez announced on Tuesday evening.

The court approved the conditional orders sought by petitioners and set February 1 as the deadline for responses.

Although a hearing had initially been set for next week, the court’s decision effectively pushes the hearing until June.

At the center of the dispute is the law passed in March that restructures the Judicial Selection Committee, the nine-member body that appoints judges to all courts. The law, which passed 67-1 after opposition parties boycotted the vote, replaces the two Israel Bar Association (IBA) representatives with political appointees, shifts the voting threshold for Supreme Court appointments from a supermajority of seven of nine to a simple five-vote approval, and introduces a deadlock-breaking mechanism.

Critics argue that these changes hand the coalition disproportionate influence over the composition of the judiciary. Supporters insist the change corrects what they describe as an imbalanced, self-selecting appointment system dominated by sitting justices and the IBA, saying the reform expands democratic oversight and better reflects the will of the electorate.

Petitions were filed immediately by civil society groups, former senior prosecutors, constitutional scholars, and opposition MKs, who argued that the law destabilizes the separation of powers – in a system that already lacks a formal constitution and relies heavily on judicial independence as a structural check on political power.

Legal pressure intensifies

By late summer and into early fall, legal pressure had intensified. Petitioners stressed that allowing the law to take effect before judicial review would enable the government to appoint judges under rules whose legality was still in dispute, especially given several expected retirements on the Supreme Court that could shift the court’s balance for years.

The Attorney-General’s Office argued even in September that the overhaul amounted to a “fundamental distortion” of the appointment process and urged the court to scrutinize the law closely. The state countered that the changes fall squarely within the Knesset’s authority and reflect what it describes as a corrective democratic balancing after years in which the court and the IBA held dominant influence over judicial appointments.

Throughout the fall, the court repeatedly requested clarifications and supplemental filings, signaling that it viewed the matter as touching on foundational structural norms: whether Basic Laws may be used to fundamentally weaken judicial independence, and how far the government’s authority extends in reshaping the judiciary that reviews its actions.

The petitioners’ request for conditional orders, requiring the state to justify why the law should not be struck down or frozen, marked a turning point. Granting those orders on Tuesday indicated the justices believe the petitions raise serious constitutional concerns that warrant full review.

Tuesday evening’s announcement formalized the court’s escalation. By assigning the issue to the full 11-justice bench – a rare step reserved for cases involving constitutional structure, Basic Law interpretation, or balance-of-power disputes – the court signaled the significance it attaches to the hearing.

The unified February 1 deadline gives the state and Knesset time to prepare extensive constitutional arguments. What had been expected to begin next week will now unfold in June, after months of review and preparation.

Until June, the Judicial Selection Committee remains in procedural limbo, with no new judges appointed under the contested rules affecting not only Supreme Court vacancies but also district and magistrates’ courts, which continue to struggle with heavy caseloads and backlogs. The state will now be tasked with defending the law’s constitutionality against petitioners who argue that Israel, lacking the formal checks and balances enshrined in other democracies, depends disproportionately on the independence and stability of its judiciary.

The confrontation over the Judicial Selection Committee has become a central front in the broader struggle over Israel’s institutional identity. That dispute, which has simmered since the initial judicial overhaul initiative in early 2023, will now head toward a defining moment this summer before the full court.