AG: Levin's Partial Plan Fails to End High Court Case on Judge Selection Panel

The ongoing standoff between Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara over the convening of the Judicial Selection Committee (JSC) has reached a critical juncture. Baharav-Miara's latest filing with the High Court of Justice underscores the gravity of the situation, arguing that Levin's partial plan to fill judicial vacancies is a mere tactic that fails to address the core issue: the paralysis of the JSC itself. The Attorney-General's office, along with the Courts Administration, paints a stark picture of a judiciary buckling under the strain of numerous vacancies, with 51 posts currently unfilled and an additional 15 expected by year's end.

“

Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s refusal to convene the Judicial Selection Committee (JSC) remains so grave that the High Court of Justice must intervene, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara argued to the court on Monday, rejecting Levin’s claim that his latest move had made the petition against him unnecessary.

This judicial shortage is not merely an administrative inconvenience; it has tangible consequences for the justice system. Hearings are being delayed, urgent decisions are postponed, and cases are languishing on shelves, exacerbating the burden on already overworked judges. The petition, initially filed by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, seeks to compel Levin to fulfill his legal obligation to convene the committee and address the systemic crisis. The High Court's conditional order demanding an explanation from Levin highlights the judicial branch's concern over the executive's inaction.

“

According to the state’s updated figures, 51 judicial posts are currently vacant across the court system, with another 15 expected to open by the end of 2026, bringing the total to 66.

Levin's recent proposal to convene the committee for a limited first stage of appointments—focusing on traffic, family, and juvenile courts, and specific regional vacancies—is viewed by the Attorney-General as an inadequate response. The requirement to publish candidates' names 45 days prior to a vote means that even Levin's proposed June 7 meeting date is contingent on swift action, and the limited scope of his plan does little to alleviate the broader systemic strain. Baharav-Miara contends that this partial approach sharpens the need for judicial intervention, rather than rendering the petition moot.

“

The shortage comes in a system already under severe strain, with the Courts Administration warning that the vacancies are delaying hearings, slowing urgent decisions, pushing cases “onto the shelf,” and deepening the burden on sitting judges.

From our perspective at the Jerusalem Post, this legal battle is more than just a procedural dispute; it strikes at the heart of Israel's democratic fabric and the rule of law. The ability of the judiciary to function effectively, free from undue political influence or obstruction, is paramount. Levin's actions, perceived by many as politically motivated attempts to reshape the judiciary, are being met with strong legal resistance. The High Court's eventual decision will have profound implications for the independence of the judiciary and the public's trust in the justice system. The stark contrast between Levin's limited proposal and the Attorney-General's call for comprehensive action underscores the deep divisions on how to best manage and staff Israel's vital court system.

“

But rather than file a full response, Levin submitted an update earlier this month asking that the petition be dismissed. Two days earlier, on April 17, he had informed committee members that he did intend to convene the committee – but only for a limited first stage of appointments.