One of the recent squabbles in Israeli politics was triggered by the Prime Minister’s decision to remove two of the judges on the panel that had been appointed to elect the winner of the prestigious Israel Prize for literature. Netanyahu openly conceded on his Facebook page that the reason for his decision was political, i.e., that the politics of those two judges (both distinguished professors of literature at top universities) were too leftist and therefore not sufficiently “Zionist” for his taste. Not surprisingly, the decision stirred public outcry.
The Israeli Supreme Court Blog
The Israeli Supreme Court Blog is part of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law’s Israeli Supreme Court Project. It is intended to supplement the English translations of Israeli Supreme Court judgments published by the Project by updating readers on the most recent developments in Israeli law and jurisprudence.
One of the unique functions of the Israeli Supreme Court is to conduct a “further hearing” – an additional round of adjudication of a case which is not considered an appeal but is usually held, at the Court’s permission, when all other possible proceedings have been exhausted. A recent decision rejecting leave to file a further hearing petition crisply explains when a further hearing may be held but raises questions as to the Court’s role in preventing corruption in government and administrative bodies.
In HCJ 5771/12 Moshe v. The Committee for Approval of Agreements for Carrying Fetuses, the Israeli Supreme Court decided a petition regarding the parenting rights of a lesbian couple who asked the Court to compel the Ministry of Health or a committee on its behalf which considers exceptional cases (the Exceptions Committee) to allow them to have a child using assisted reproductive technologies (ART).
Disability Legal Studies is a relatively new field. It seeks to apply the perspectives of Disability Studies to law and examines the role that legal institutions play in the social construction of disability. Looking at the case of Ora Mor Yosef, a Jewish-Israeli woman living with muscular dystrophy (CA 11184/14 CA, Anonymous v.
There are at least three contexts in which the Court has grappled with Palestinians’ property rights and to which it has recently devoted attention: home demolitions, absentee properties, and the legality of settlements. As the Court notes, the legality of all of these practices is questionable under international law and possibly under Israeli law, yet they continue to be implemented by the Israeli Government. Some of these practices predate Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, so they cannot be struck down as unconstitutional.
A decision in Conservative Movement v. Be’er Sheva Religious Council (AAA 5875/10, handed down by the Court on February 11, 2016) once more highlights the tension between Israel’s split identities – Jewish and democratic.
A recent decision by the Israeli Supreme Court (CA 7918/15, Jane Doe v. Gal Friedman, November 24, 2015, available in translation here), in which the Court was called upon to determine whether a body could be cremated against the family’s wishes, affirmed one’s rights in death, but can also be seen as a vindication of identity rights.
Remarks at a Conference Marking the Retirement of President Grunis
Deputy President Emeritus Eliezer Rivlin
June 21, 2015
Translated by Orly Rachmilovitz
In an event held in a Supreme Court courtroom upon the retirement of President Dorit Beinisch and the beginning of the Justice Asher Grunis’ term as President, I congratulated them both and expressed my confidence that President Grunis would safely sail the Court through troubled waters to a safe haven.