Time is running out for Levin to announce chief justice candidates

Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced on Sunday night the candidates for chief justice of Israel’s High Court of Justice, in accordance with a High Court ruling from September 8 forcing him to do so within 14 days.

However, rather than announce the two candidates who applied for the role, Isaac Amit and Yosef Elron, Levin put forward all 12 of the High Court judges on the bench (not including Justice Uzi Vogelman, who is set to retire in October).

The law does not say explicitly that only those who apply can become chief justice, but rather that the chief justice is elected out of one of the sitting justices.

The move was thus a show of spite for the High Court, which Levin accused in an accompanying letter of removing his statutory authority over the chief justice election procedure.

The justice minister waited until the very end of his allotted time of 14 days, and it was not clear until the announcement whether or not he would respect the ruling.

As per the High Court ruling, Levin must now act in the “immediate future” to convene the Judicial Selection Committee and hold a vote.

Levin has refrained from doing so since the previous chief justice, Esther Hayut, retired in October 2023.

Background information 

Levin argued that he refrained from electing a new chief justice in order to appoint a candidate that had “broad support.” However, Levin is also opposed to the candidacy of Amit, who is likely to become the chief justice when the vote is held. Amit is considered a liberal justice and is next in line to take over as chief justice according to the long-standing “seniority” method, whereby the longest-tenured justices on the High Court bench become the chief justice. The seniority method is not enshrined in law. Levin has expressed support instead for the only other justice to announce his candidacy, the conservative Elron.

Levin wrote to the members of the Judicial Selection Committee on Tuesday that forcing the vote upon him in an “aggressive way” stood “in contrast to the spirit of unity and responsibility” necessary during war.

“Whoever tries to take the crown with force and place it on his head will not receive public trust and will not be remembered as someone who was elected in by law and in the accepted way,” Levin wrote.

In parallel to the legal timeline following the September 8 ruling, Levin has also considered enacting legislation in order to alter the seniority method, or, alternatively, changing the election procedure so that the governing coalition on the Judicial Selection Committee receives veto power on the chief justice election.

The nine-member committee includes three members of the governing coalition, including Levin himself; one member of the opposition; three High Court justices; and two members of the Israel Bar Association. The justices, lawyers, and opposition MK, who have a majority in the committee, tend to support appointments of liberal justices. The chief justice election requires a simple 5-to-4 majority in the nine-member committee, and therefore, Amit is likely to be elected. However, Levin’s idea is to change the requisite majority to 7 to 2, and thus the three members of the coalition will have de facto veto power.

The law requires a 7-to-2 majority in appointing new justices to the bench. In addition to choosing a new chief justice, the petition in the High Court was also against Levin’s delay in appointing new justices to replace the soon-to-be three vacancies on the bench. However, the court ruled that the requisite 7-to-2 majority awarded Levin the right to delay the appointments until a broad agreement was reached. Levin’s hope is that if he changes the chief justice appointment procedure to mirror that of the new justice appointment procedure, the court will no longer be able to force him to hold a vote to choose the chief justice.