100% of Cabinet Votes to Defy Supreme Court: Israel's Rule of Law Crisis

In an unprecedented escalation of the ongoing struggle between Israel's executive and judicial branches, the cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voted unanimously on Sunday, July 5, 2026, to defy a Supreme Court ruling concerning the country's broadcast regulator. This marks the first time Netanyahu's government has outright flouted a Supreme Court decision, pushing the nation into what opposition leaders and legal experts are calling its most severe constitutional crisis. The dispute centers on the Second Authority for Television and Radio, a regulatory body that, under Israeli law, requires a minimum number of members to function. The government contends that the council has fallen below this legal threshold and therefore lacks the authority to approve appointments or take any official actions. On June 17, 2026, the Supreme Court ordered the council to continue its operations despite the membership deficit, a ruling the cabinet now declares null and void. Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, a long-time architect of efforts to curb judicial power, released a joint statement following the vote, asserting that the court had overstepped its bounds and that 'a ruling that contradicts the law will not be recognised and decisions made under it are null and void.' Karhi further criticized the court, stating that judges 'are not parliament,' emphasizing the executive's view that the judiciary cannot override legislative intent. The government announced it will 'act through all legal means at its disposal to nullify the decision,' signaling a multi-pronged strategy that may include legislative action to strip the court of authority over administrative bodies. This confrontation did not arise in a vacuum. Since forming a coalition after the 2022 elections, Netanyahu's government has sought to limit the Supreme Court's powers through a sweeping judicial reform package. The proposed changes sparked widespread domestic protests and drew sharp international condemnation, with critics warning they would undermine democratic checks and balances. The reform effort was paused following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks but has since been partially revived, intensifying the rift between the government and the judiciary. The current clash over the media regulator serves as a vivid flashpoint in this broader campaign, testing the boundaries of judicial review and executive authority. The cabinet's decision has immediate and far-reaching implications. First, it effectively paralyzes the Second Authority, which oversees commercial television and radio broadcasts, leaving the media landscape in regulatory limbo. Without a recognized council, licensing, content regulation, and spectrum allocation could grind to a halt, potentially affecting broadcasters' operations and investors' confidence. Second, by refusing to comply with a court order, the government sets a dangerous precedent that could embolden other branches of the state to ignore judicial rulings, eroding the rule of law. Opposition leader Yair Lapid condemned the move in the strongest terms, stating that 'the government had turned criminal' and that 'this is the most serious constitutional crisis in Israel's history. It's the destruction of the foundations of our democracy.' Lapid's remarks reflect a growing fear that the executive's defiance chips away at the very framework that ensures accountability, especially with elections on the horizon in which Lapid's bloc seeks to unseat Netanyahu. The international community will likely watch closely, as Israel—long considered a strong democracy in the Middle East—faces comparisons to countries like Poland and Hungary where judicial independence has been systematically undermined. The European Union and United States, historically allies, may express concern, potentially impacting diplomatic relations and economic partnerships. The government's legal rationale hinges on a strict textual interpretation: the law mandates a quorum, and without it, the council's acts are ultra vires. Yet this position challenges the basic principle of judicial review, wherein courts interpret and enforce the law. By declaring the court's ruling void, the cabinet is not merely appealing the decision but rejecting the court's authority to adjudicate such matters at all. This could force a showdown where the Supreme Court issues contempt orders or other sanctions, which the executive might again ignore, spiraling into a full-blown constitutional breakdown. Looking ahead, several scenarios are possible. The government may attempt to pass legislation retroactively validating its stance, effectively rewriting the rules to sideline the court. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could double down, holding ministers in contempt and escalating tensions. Public protests, reminiscent of the massive demonstrations in 2023, may reemerge, adding pressure. Ultimately, the resolution will depend on whether institutional norms or raw political power prevails. For now, the cabinet's unprecedented defiance marks a watershed moment, not just for Israel's media regulation but for the resilience of its democratic institutions, with the world watching to see if the country can navigate this crisis without permanent damage to its constitutional order.