The High Court of Justice pressed Justice Minister Yariv Levin to say whether he will move ahead with permanent appointments to the Beersheba and Haifa district courts on Sunday, giving him until Tuesday evening to respond before the justices decide whether to issue a ruling in the petition against him.
The hearing, held before Justices Ofer Grosskopf, Alex Stein, and Gila Canfy-Steinitz, was the latest stage in the petition filed by the Movement for Quality Government against Levin’s handling of the Judicial Selection Committee, as dozens of judicial posts remain empty and the election clock threatens to freeze the process altogether.
Grosskopf, who led much of the questioning, narrowed the focus to the shortage of permanent judges in the Beersheba and Haifa district courts, which the panel treated as the most urgent district-court vacancies still unresolved.
“We are asking that the minister consider with the members of the committee accelerating the handling of these two courts,” Grosskopf told Levin’s attorney, Zion Amir, after a break in the hearing.
The justice said that, in order to complete the appointments before the election period blocks the process, candidate lists would likely need to be published by June 7 or 8. Amir said he would provide Levin’s answer by Tuesday evening.
The petition, filed in July 2025, asks the court to compel Levin, who chairs the Judicial Selection Committee, to convene it to vote on appointments needed throughout the court system.
Levin says he previously advanced nearly 200 appointments of judges and registrars through broad agreement, while the petitioners argue that he has since unlawfully conditioned further appointments on consensus not required by law.
Election timeline narrows window for judicial appointments
The case has become more urgent as elections approach. Candidates’ names must be published in the state gazette 45 days before the Judicial Selection Committee can vote on them. Once the election period begins, ordinary appointments are generally frozen, leaving only a narrow window to complete the process.
In February, the High Court issued a conditional order requiring Levin to explain why he would not convene the committee to fill vacant judicial posts across all levels of the judiciary. After a May 3 hearing, the justices ordered him to provide a timetable for appointments in the magistrates’ and district courts.
Levin’s latest affidavit laid out a limited plan. He said that after the war with Iran and the home-front emergency delayed the process, he asked committee members on April 17 to submit candidates for vacant posts and set June 7 as the first possible meeting, given the 45-day publication requirement.
He said he then decided to prioritize juvenile, traffic, and family courts, as well as magistrates’ court vacancies in the North and Haifa districts. Candidate lists for 36 positions were published on May 10, with committee meetings set for June 25 and June 30.
Additional lists were published on May 17 for magistrates’ courts in the South and for senior registrar posts nationwide.
But Levin did not publish candidate lists for permanent district court appointments. Instead, he said he would seek temporary appointments to the Haifa and Beersheba district courts from a list supported by most committee members.
That distinction dominated Sunday’s hearing.
“Why not appoint permanent judges? Why?” Grosskopf asked. “Why is the minister insisting on temporary appointments?”
Amir argued that temporary appointments were a practical solution in a difficult moment. “In times of crisis, you need creative solutions,” he said.
Grosskopf pushed back sharply, saying he was “only sorry that the minister is offering creative solutions to a problem he himself created.”
The justice also rejected the idea that Levin could delay appointments because he lacked consensus in the committee. “When there is a need to appoint, the committee must be convened, even if there is no consensus,” Grosskopf said. “The chairman needs to bring the matter to a majority decision.”
Stein raised concerns about the use of temporary district court appointments, saying they create a problematic incentive structure for judges serving temporarily in higher courts.
Grosskopf similarly said temporary appointments were not a healthy substitute for permanent appointments. He noted that such appointments had previously been curtailed under former justice minister Daniel Friedmann because of the concerns they raised.
Canfy-Steinitz questioned why Levin had moved ahead with candidates for magistrates’ courts in some districts, but not for district courts, despite the approaching deadline.
“We have not had district court nominations in over a year, and we have about two weeks left,” she said, asking what could still be done to advance appointments.
Court shortages grow amid fight over appointments
The Movement for Quality Government argued in its response to Levin’s affidavit that his position proves the problem rather than solves it.
The group said the law does not give Levin, or any other committee member, a veto over appointments, and does not allow him to refuse to convene the committee until all members agree in advance.
MQG also argued that Levin’s plan ignores major shortages already known to him, including four vacancies in the Tel Aviv District Court, three in the Central and Jerusalem district courts, seven in the Central Magistrate’s Court, and five in the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court.
According to earlier state figures cited in the case, 51 judicial posts are currently vacant across the system, with another 15 expected to open by the end of 2026. The Courts Administration has warned that the shortage is delaying hearings, slowing urgent decisions, pushing back cases, and increasing the burden on sitting judges.
Levin warned the High Court in his affidavit against turning the conditional order into a final order, saying such a ruling would not only interfere with his authority to convene the committee but would also dictate the committee’s agenda, timetable, and method of selecting judges.
In practice, he argued, it would turn the Supreme Court into the committee’s chair.
The petitioners rejected that framing, saying Levin’s staged approach would allow him to leave major vacancies unresolved until the next Knesset, when a controversial amendment changing the committee’s composition is set to take effect.
The amendment, passed in March 2025, increases political influence over judicial appointments, but applies only from the next Knesset.
Sunday’s hearing ended without a ruling. The justices instead gave Levin a narrow window to say whether he will advance permanent appointments for the Beersheba and Haifa district courts before the election timetable makes doing so impossible.