A senior Israeli lawmaker says the next government may build an entirely new court and place it above the Supreme Court, handing that new bench the power to decide whether laws passed by the Knesset can stand. The current top court would keep its other work but lose its ability to strike legislation down.

The proposal came from MK Simcha Rothman of the Religious Zionism party, who spoke to The Times of Israel on Wednesday. Rothman chairs the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, the panel where the government’s judicial overhaul bills were drafted, and he was one of the principal architects of that agenda. He described the Supreme Court as an institution that “does not obey the law” and said a new judicial tier above it may become necessary if the justices do not pull back on their own.

He framed it as a last resort rather than a plan already in motion. Rothman said he hopes the judges moderate their approach so the step is not needed, but that it may have to be taken if there is no alternative. He did not spell out what powers the new court would hold, including whether it would also review government decisions and not only legislation.

The practical significance is in who would staff it. A newly created court would have its makeup and mandate set by the government that establishes it, potentially reshaping the balance of power between Israel’s elected branches and its judiciary.

Legislation already passed by the current government gave politicians a greater voice in judicial appointments, and the same political battle over the composition of the judiciary would almost certainly extend to any new constitutional court.

Israel has no written constitution. It operates instead under a series of Basic Laws that set out how the institutions of government function, and the Supreme Court has used two of those laws as grounds for voiding legislation on 23 occasions since 1995. In 2024 it struck down a Basic Law itself for the first time, invalidating a central plank of the judicial overhaul.

Recent rulings have sharpened the confrontation. In the past several weeks the court froze parts of a media overhaul law, halted implementation of a law barring the arrest of ultra-Orthodox draft evaders, and blocked budget transfers approved after the Knesset was dissolved. The government has responded by accusing the court of overriding the will of the legislature, and in one case issued an unprecedented statement declaring it would not treat a ruling as binding.

There is a less dramatic route already sitting on the shelf. The coalition passed a bill in its first reading that would let a simple majority of 61 lawmakers override a court decision voiding legislation, while sharply narrowing the court’s ability to strike laws down in the first place. Rothman said a returning coalition could resume that bill where it stopped and move it swiftly through its remaining readings, arguing that in a parliamentary system the legislature should hold the final word.

Rothman is not alone in raising the constitutional court idea. Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi has proposed it, as have Knesset Finance Committee chair MK Hanoch Milwidsky and fellow Likud MK Avichay Buaron, both within the last two days. Whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Justice Minister Yariv Levin would back the move is unclear, particularly given the scale of opposition it could draw.

The opposition rejected the premise outright. MK Karine Elharrar of Yesh Atid said the fault lies not with the court but with a coalition passing anti-democratic legislation, and argued that what the proposal’s backers actually want is a bench of politically aligned judges reflecting their own views. She called the concept detached from reality in a country with no formal constitution, and said her party would move to enact a full constitutional charter grounded in the Declaration of Independence if elected.

The dispute goes well beyond another fight over judges. It is ultimately about which institution gets the final word when Israel’s elected parliament and its highest court disagree over the limits of government power.

Constitutional courts are common across democracies, but nearly all operate alongside a written constitution that defines what the court is measuring legislation against. Hungary under Fidesz and Poland under the Law and Justice party both curbed the reach of their top courts during the 2010s and 2020s, and both saw their democracy ratings cut by international watchdogs amid concerns over judicial independence.

For business, the exposure is legal predictability. Investors, lenders and multinationals operating in Israel price in a judiciary whose authority is settled. Any attempt to establish a new court without broad political agreement would risk reopening the institutional confrontation that fueled mass protests in 2023.

That fight could arrive with an election campaign already under way and the shape of the next coalition still unresolved, turning the authority of Israel’s courts into not only a constitutional question but an economic and political risk investors would have to price.

JBizNews Desk | Jerusalem

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.