The Knesset’s legal department issued a sharp warning Thursday that a proposed amendment to Basic Law: The Government — dubbed the “Ben Gvir Law” — could be invalidated by the High Court of Justice if enacted in its current form.

In a preparatory document circulated to members of the special committee reviewing amendments to the Basic Law, the Knesset’s legal adviser wrote that the bill’s attempt to bar judicial review over the appointment and dismissal of ministers may exceed constitutional boundaries set by the Supreme Court. The adviser cautioned that the proposal could be viewed as personal legislation and potentially deemed an abuse of the Knesset’s constituent authority under standards established in recent rulings.

According to the draft under consideration, courts would be prohibited from exercising judicial review over the appointment or removal of ministers, aside from verifying compliance with formal eligibility requirements set by law. In practical terms, this would eliminate judicial scrutiny of the prime minister’s discretion and remove from the court’s authority the precedent established in the Deri-Pinhasi ruling, which laid the groundwork for intervention in appointments considered extremely unreasonable.

The legal opinion states that a sweeping elimination of judicial oversight would conflict with warnings expressed in recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the January 2024 ruling that struck down the amendment canceling the reasonableness doctrine. In that case, a majority of justices held that the court retains authority to intervene in exceptional cases involving misuse of constituent power. The document notes that several senior justices indicated that a narrower amendment — for example, one that limits application of the reasonableness doctrine specifically in the context of ministerial appointments — might have been considered differently than a broad measure barring all forms of review.

The legal department warned that the current wording could undermine foundational principles of separation of powers and the rule of law because it “leaves entire areas without effective judicial review” and hampers the protection of important public interests, including public trust and governmental integrity.

Beyond the substantive concerns, the legal office also pointed to constitutional and political timing issues. Renewed efforts to advance the bill could place it in direct tension with the Supreme Court’s doctrine of “abuse of constituent authority,” as articulated in the ruling on incapacity legislation. The document highlights that in light of Justice Stein’s ruling regarding Aryeh Deri, as well as the conditional order issued in a petition asking the court to instruct the prime minister to dismiss National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, there is heightened concern that the amendment may be aimed at producing immediate consequences for specific political figures. Under the framework set by the court, such circumstances could support a claim that the Knesset is not acting as a general constituent authority but rather tailoring a Basic Law to address a present political need.

Among the alternatives suggested by the legal department is adopting a more limited model that would restrict judicial review only with respect to the reasonableness doctrine, particularly in cases where appointments have also been approved by the Knesset, while preserving the possibility of review on other legal grounds. Another option under consideration is prospective application — delaying the amendment’s effect until the next Knesset — a step that could mitigate claims of personal legislation and avoid the appearance of altering constitutional rules midstream.

The legal adviser further recommended strengthening parliamentary oversight mechanisms to prevent the creation of unchecked executive authority. Proposed measures include expanding the Knesset’s ability to hold individual votes on certain ministerial appointments during the swearing-in of a government; requiring presentation to the plenum of the circumstances surrounding a new minister’s appointment upon the request of 40 members of Knesset; and even establishing a structured process allowing the Knesset to remove a minister by majority vote after due proceedings and the opportunity for the minister to present arguments.

Deliberations on the proposal resumed after the Knesset Committee voted to reconstitute the special committee under Section 89 of the Knesset bylaws, enabling it to revisit language that had previously been prepared for second and third readings but never brought to a final vote. The legal department emphasized that nearly three years have passed since that draft was formulated and that significant constitutional rulings have since been issued, warranting a renewed review of the bill’s language and its compliance with judicial standards.

At the center of the debate is whether lawmakers will insist on advancing a sweeping amendment that would largely remove High Court involvement in ministerial appointments and dismissals, or instead adopt a more measured revision designed to reduce constitutional friction and increase the likelihood that the legislation would withstand judicial scrutiny if challenged.