High Court orders Levin to justify refusal to convene Judicial Selection Committee

Top justices issue a conditional order, saying judge shortages are harming the public.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin has been ordered by the High Court of Justice to explain why he has not convened the Judicial Selection Committee to begin judicial appointments – a move petitioners say has left Israel’s courts dangerously understaffed and the public’s access to justice in peril.

In a tense hearing last week before Justices Ofer Grosskopf, Alex Stein, and Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, the court indicated it would issue a conditional order requiring Levin to state under oath why he has not exercised his authority to bring the committee together to vote on judicial nominations “for the purpose of filling the missing judge posts in all jurisdictions of the judicial branch.”

Under the court’s timetable, Levin must submit a sworn affidavit by March 8 explaining his position. The Attorney-General and the petitioners – including the Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG), which filed the petition – have until March 15 to file their principal arguments.

A hearing opposing the conditional order is expected to be scheduled in late March, the justices said.

MQG said in response, “For over a year and a half, the judicial system has been paralyzed, with dozens of judge positions vacant in all instances – from the magistrate courts to the Supreme Court, where four judicial seats remain empty. The Israeli public is paying the price through delays, accumulating cases, and severe harm to the right of access to justice.”

It added, “Levin has turned himself, on his own authority and contrary to the law, into a veto player over judicial appointments, a power that is not granted to him by law. It must not be allowed for the minister to continue holding the committee hostage for political purposes.”

‘We are releasing defendants accused of murder’

At last week’s hearing, justices did not mince words.

“We are releasing defendants accused of murder,” Stein said, warning that severe shortages of judges have hamstrung the courts, delayed criminal proceedings, and forced the release of serious offenders due to lack of available panels. “That means something is not working.”

Grosskopf pressed Levin’s attorney, Zion Amir, asking how prolonged inaction could be squared with the public interest: “How can the minister claim to be acting for the public’s benefit, when court presidents are saying criminal proceedings cannot even be opened because there are no judges?” he asked.

Under Israeli law, the Justice Minister chairs the Judicial Selection Committee and is responsible for convening it when judicial vacancies arise. Petitioners argue that Levin’s long refusal to convene the panel – with the committee’s last meeting held on January 26, 2025 – has left dozens of judicial posts unfilled, hurting the system’s ability to function.

According to the Attorney-General’s Office, roughly 44 judicial positions are currently vacant, with another 21 expected to open by the end of 2026, bringing the total to around 65 – not including new positions to be created under recent budgets. Without appointments, cases accumulate, hearings are delayed, and litigants wait longer for justice.

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has sharply criticized Levin’s strategy as illegal and harmful to the public interest, asserting that he has effectively created a veto over judicial appointments that is not grounded in statute.

Miara says the law requires only a simple majority vote for lower and district court appointments and that conditioning meetings on “broad consensus” is contrary to both the letter and purpose of the law.

Levin maintains that until there is sufficient agreement among committee members – including representatives of the judiciary, the Israel Bar Association, and the Knesset – the committee should not be convened. His legal team says past practices show that the committee has sometimes gone long periods without meeting, and that seeking broad consensus is a legitimate exercise of his discretionary authority.

His argument echoes debates that have accompanied the government’s broader judicial reform agenda, which has placed the composition and role of the Judicial Selection Committee at the center of systemic change. Critics say that the minister’s restraint in convening the panel has, in practice, amounted to a prolonged freeze on appointments.

In issuing the conditional order, the High Court directed him to explain why he has refrained from exercising his statutory authority to convene the committee and address the ongoing judicial vacancies. If the court finds his reasons insufficient, it could convert the conditional order into an absolute one.