CNN –
Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a controversial government plan to limit the powers of the judiciary. It is an unprecedented move that has reignited intense tensions in the country as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wages war against Hamas in Gaza.
The court ruled by eight votes to seven that there should be no government change to the so-called adequacy law. The bill had stripped the Supreme Court of the power to declare government decisions unreasonable and was the first major step in a multi-pronged effort to weaken the judiciary passed by the Knesset, Israel's parliament, last year.
The ruling sparked an emotional and heated debate that had raged throughout Israel throughout 2023 but was sidelined after Hamas attacks on October 7. And it could cause divisions within Israel's war cabinet, which includes Netanyahu and two prominent critics of his efforts to reform the courts.
Netanyahu's next moves will be closely watched from all sides, and there is a risk of a constitutional crisis if he tries to push forward the controversial change.
In its ruling, the court said it rejected the amendment because it would represent a “severe and unprecedented blow to the core features of the State of Israel as a democratic state.”
The law, which came into force after being passed in July, stripped the court of the power to veto government decisions on the grounds that they were “unreasonable.” Opinion polls showed large parts of Israel's population opposed the change, which critics said would undermine the independence of the courts and harm Israeli democracy.
Its passage sparked large protests – a regular sight in Israel's cities since Netanyahu unveiled his justice agenda – and prompted thousands of army reservists to threaten not to show up for work.
The opponents of the plans also included Netanyahu's two colleagues from his war cabinet. Yoav Gallant, the defense minister, in March became the first member of Netanyahu's pre-war cabinet to publicly speak out against his plans, leading to his temporary dismissal before being reinstated. And Benny Gantz, the leader of Israel's opposition National Unity Party, led protests against the effort earlier this year.
After Monday's verdict, Gantz said the court's decision “must be respected.”
“These are not days for political disputes, there are no winners and losers today. Today we have only one common goal – to win the war together,” he said.
“After the war, we will be required to regulate the relationship between the authorities and to enact a basic law that also anchors the status of the basic laws.”
Israel's allies, including the United States, had previously expressed concern about the revision. US President Joe Biden told the New York Times in July that Netanyahu would risk US-Israel relations if the reform was passed without broad consensus. The amendment was passed in the Knesset without a single vote from the opposition, which boycotted the vote.
Netanyahu's allies criticized the court's decision on Monday.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called the ruling “illegal” and said it harmed Israeli forces fighting in Gaza.
“This is a dangerous, anti-democratic event – and, at this point, above all, a decision that harms Israel’s war efforts against its enemies,” Ben-Gvir said.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the architect of the judicial reform plans, called it “the opposite of the spirit of unity that is required today for the success of our fighters on the front lines.” The Israeli prime minister's Likud party said the ruling was “regrettable” as it “goes against the people's will for unity, especially in times of war.”
Opposition leader Yair Lapid said in a post on X that the Supreme Court had his full support as it had “faithfully fulfilled its role in protecting the citizens of Israel.”
“If the Israeli government starts the Supreme Court dispute again, it will have learned nothing,” he said. “They learned nothing on October 7th, they learned nothing from 87 days of war for our homeland.”
The doctrine of adequacy does not only apply to the Israeli judiciary. The principle is used in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.
The standard is often used by courts there to determine the constitutionality or legality of a particular legal act and allows judges to ensure that decisions made by officials are “reasonable.”
The prime minister and his supporters argued that the Supreme Court had become an isolated, elitist group that did not represent the Israeli people. They say it has overstepped its role and gotten involved in issues it shouldn't decide, and the proposed changes would correct that trend.
But critics say Netanyahu pushed the reform to protect himself from his own corruption trial, in which he is accused of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. He denies any wrongdoing.
The government draft changed one of Israel's basic laws, which is considered informal in the absence of a formal constitution. Until Monday's ruling, the Supreme Court had never before repealed a constitution or an amendment to a constitution.
In their ruling, 12 of the 15 judges agreed that the court had the power to repeal a constitution in “extreme cases.” Only eight of the twelve considered this an extreme case.
Debates over Netanyahu's efforts were halted on Oct. 7 when Hamas' attacks on Israel triggered the formation of a war cabinet and seemingly ended the back-and-forth in Israel's sharply divided politics.
But the issue resurfaced on Dec. 29 when a draft document was leaked that hinted at Monday's ruling.
In response to the leak, Justice Minister Levin claimed that “citizens of Israel expect the Supreme Court not to publish a ruling during a war that is controversial even among its judges.” Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana added: “One Time of war is certainly not the time to set a first precedent of this kind in the history of the country.”
However, the Supreme Court had to release its ruling by January 12 because two judges handling the case have retired and are required by law to deliver their final rulings within three months of their retirement.