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.
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.
In recent weeks, political and legal news in Israel have devoted a lot of attention to the appointment of Avichai Mendelblit as Attorney General (“AG”). Below is a summary of the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision in two petitions challenging the appointment, first because Mendelblit was the lone candidate for the position, and second for allegations of conflict of interests.
The Comparative Project: A Synopsis of Presentations from Panel One of the ISCP's inaugural conference, Constitutional Conflicts and the Judicial Role in Comparative Perspective
*Prepared by Orly Rachmilovitz
William Ewald (University of Pennsylvania School of Law)
In a landmark decision handed down in April, Avneri v. The Knesset, HCJ 5239/11, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the bulk of the Anti-Boycott Law while striking down one important provision. That law, passed in 2011, empowers the finance minister to fine, withhold funding from, or bring suits for damages against Israeli NGOs that call for boycotts of businesses in Israel.
Swearing-in Ceremony for President of the Supreme Court, Justice Miriam Naor, and Farewell to President of the Supreme Court, President Asher Grunis
The President’s Residence, January 15, 2015
Asher Grunis, President of the Supreme Court
Translated by Orly Rachmilovitz
The recent retirement of President Asher Grunis would probably not be viewed by the legal community in Israel as the end of an era in the history of the Supreme Court. Justice Grunis has always been considered a sophisticated and cautious jurist who specialized in private law. It is also a well-known fact that during his short three-year tenure as President he focused primarily on procedural reforms in order to deal with the heavy caseload pressures on the judicial system.