In a landmark decision that has sparked widespread debate, the High Court of Justice of Israel has struck down a piece of legislation that limited judicial oversight of the government, marking the first time in Israel’s history that an element of its quasi-constitutional Basic Laws has been annulled. The High Court’s decision was narrowly reached, with eight justices voting in favor of striking down the law and seven voting against. The contentious legislation, which was the only significant law passed from the government’s judicial overhaul agenda, abolished the judicial use of the “reasonableness” standard. The ruling sets a legal precedent, affirming the High Court’s contention that, under limited circumstances, it holds the right to annul Basic Laws. These laws form the foundation of authority for all state institutions, including the court itself. Twelve out of the fifteen justices concurred that the court possesses the authority to invalidate Basic Laws. The reasonableness law, enacted in July as an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, prohibited courts, including the High Court, from assessing and ruling against government and ministerial decisions based on the judicial standard of reasonableness. Petitioners against the law, including Attorney General Gali Baharav Miara, argued that it removed essential safeguards for Israeli democracy and warranted nullification. Conversely, the government maintained that this standard granted the court excessive power to interfere in policy decisions, which should fall under governmental jurisdiction, and contested the court’s authority to strike down Basic Laws. Prior to the October 7 conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, some government ministers and coalition members had indicated that they might not respect a decision to annul the legislation, raising concerns about a potential constitutional crisis. The ongoing conflict may influence the reactions to this decision. During the September hearing on the law, liberal justices like Acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman expressed grave concerns that the law effectively annulled all meaningful judicial review of government and ministerial decisions. However, conservative justices such as David Mintz and Noam Sohlberg argued that there was no constitutional basis for the High Court to invalidate Basic Laws. (YWN World Headquarters – NYC)