High Court blasts Levin: ‘No judges, we are releasing murder suspects’
The High Court sharply criticized Justice Minister Levin for failing to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, warning that Israel’s judicial system is facing a crisis due to vacant positions.
High Court justices on Thursday delivered unusually sharp criticism of Justice Minister Yariv Levin for refusing to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, warning that the growing shortage of judges has reached crisis levels – including the release of murder defendants to house arrest due to a lack of available panels.
“We are releasing defendants accused of murder – that means something is not working,” Justice Alex Stein said during the hearing. Referring to the severe shortage at theBeersheba District Court, Stein added: “In the current state of crime in Israel, this is a crisis. I had to release three murder defendants. It cannot be described otherwise.”
The petition, filed by the Movement for Quality Government and backed by Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, seeks to compel Levin to convene the committee immediately in order to fill dozens of vacant judicial posts across the system.
The three-justice panel – Stein, Justice Ofer Grosskopf, and Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz – repeatedly pressed Levin’s attorney, Zion Amir, on how continued inaction could be reconciled with the public interest.
“How can the minister claim to be acting for the public’s benefit,” Grosskopf asked, “when court presidents are saying criminal proceedings cannot even be opened because there are no judges? Are we waiting until we simply cannot conduct trials at all?”
According to figures presented to the court by the Attorney-General’s Office and the Courts Administration, approximately 150 judicial positions – roughly 15% of the total bench – are currently unfilled. Four of those vacancies are on the Supreme Court, which is operating with 11 justices instead of its full complement of 15.
Ynet reported that 44 positions are currently vacant, with another 21 expected to open by year’s end, bringing the total number of open or soon-to-be-open seats to approximately 65. The Courts Administration has said that roughly 100 appointments are needed this year.
The most acute shortage is in the Beersheba District Court, where six district court judges are missing amid heavy caseloads tied to violent crime in southern Israel.
Stein questioned Levin’s decision not to appoint a successor to the late Beersheba District Court president Beni Sagi, who was killed in a car accident. Levin has argued that appointments require agreement between the justice minister and the Supreme Court president and that a broad consensus is necessary before convening the committee.
Justices pushed back
But the justices pushed back sharply.
“The authority given to the justice minister to convene the committee was meant to introduce ideological diversity,” Stein said. “It is substantive authority – not technical. But the burden is on the minister to achieve agreements.”
Grosskopf went further, comparing the situation to a hypothetical health minister refusing to appoint hospital directors. “If the health minister failed to appoint hospital administrators, what would happen?” he asked. “We are showing rare restraint because this concerns the judicial branch – but how long would we tolerate such inaction in any other field?”
Levin’s refusal to convene the committee unfolds against the backdrop of the government’s broader judicial reform legislation, first unveiled by him in January 2023, which placed restructuring the Judicial Selection Committee at the center of the reform agenda.
The coalition argued that the existing nine-member committee – composed of justices, ministers, MKs and Bar Association representatives – gave the judiciary outsized influence over its own composition.
In March 2024, the coalition passed legislation altering the committee’s structure, though the change is set to take effect only in the next Knesset. Until then, the current statutory framework remains in place.
The dispute over appointments has therefore become one of the most concrete battlegrounds of the reform, with critics accusing Levin of leveraging his authority to convene the committee as a de-facto veto over judicial nominations – particularly to the Supreme Court.
At the center of the dispute is Levin’s insistence on reaching broad consensus before bringing appointments to a vote. Under Israeli law, appointments to lower courts require a simple majority of the nine-member committee, while Supreme Court appointments require a supermajority of seven.
Baharav-Miara argued in her submission that Levin is effectively creating for himself an unlimited veto not grounded in statute. “The minister is using the governmental power entrusted to him to create an unlimited veto over judicial appointments,” she wrote, calling the move unlawful and harmful to the judiciary’s functioning.
Levin has rejected those claims as false. Through his attorney, he argued that during his tenure approximately 200 judges and registrars were appointed – a historically high number – and that he is seeking broad agreements that others on the committee are allegedly blocking.
“The attempt to portray the justice minister as an enemy of the system is a grave mistake,” Amir told the court.
Grosskopf countered that while past appointments were substantial, prolonged refusal to convene the committee would inevitably create larger gaps. “If judges are not appointed for a long period, many will have to be appointed at once later – and that is not good either,” he said.
The justices indicated they were considering issuing a conditional order requiring Levin to explain his refusal to convene the committee, though they suggested they might grant a brief extension if he seeks additional time to reach agreements.
“This is a very serious petition,” Stein said. “It cannot continue like this.”
