Israel cabinet challenges Supreme Court media ruling as constitutional crisis fears return

Israel’s government has challenged a Supreme Court ruling concerning the country’s commercial television and radio regulator, reviving the institutional conflict that triggered mass protests before the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and the wars that followed.

The cabinet unanimously approved a declaration on July 5, 2026, stating that it would not recognise decisions, appointments or other actions taken by the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio while the body allegedly remains below the membership threshold required by law. The decision followed a June 17 Supreme Court ruling allowing the council to continue functioning despite the government’s objection to its composition.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi argued that the Supreme Court had exceeded its authority by permitting a statutory body to operate without the number of members required by legislation. The ministers said the government would use all available legal mechanisms to overturn the ruling and would treat decisions made by the council under its current composition as invalid.

Opposition leaders, President Isaac Herzog and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara warned that refusing to implement a Supreme Court judgment could undermine the rule of law and create a constitutional crisis. Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs disputed the interpretation that the government had ordered open disobedience, maintaining that the cabinet had criticised the judgment and promised to challenge it through lawful procedures.

What did Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet decide about the Israeli media regulator?

The government’s decision concerns the Second Authority for Television and Radio, which regulates Israel’s commercial television and radio market. The authority oversees broadcasters, licensing, appointments and other regulatory matters affecting major privately operated media organisations.

Israeli law requires the council governing the Second Authority for Television and Radio to maintain a minimum number of members before it can make valid decisions. The government argues that the previous council fell below that threshold and therefore lost the legal authority to approve appointments or conduct other regulatory business.

The dispute became more complicated after the government appointed a new council in March 2026. Petitions challenging the appointments alleged that the selection process had been politically influenced. Supreme Court Justice Alex Stein subsequently issued an interim order freezing the new council’s activities while the court considered the petitions.

The Supreme Court later allowed the previous council to resume operating despite its reduced membership. The cabinet responded by declaring that it would not recognise decisions, approvals, appointments or actions made by the council until it met the statutory threshold.

The government’s language created uncertainty over whether ministries and public bodies would implement future decisions issued by the regulator. A situation in which the Supreme Court recognises regulatory decisions but the executive refuses to enforce them would place different branches of the Israeli state in direct institutional conflict.

Why do Yariv Levin and Shlomo Karhi say the Supreme Court exceeded its powers?

Yariv Levin and Shlomo Karhi have framed the confrontation as a dispute over compliance with legislation rather than an attempt to weaken the judiciary. Their position is that courts must interpret and apply statutes but cannot remove explicit conditions established by the Knesset.

Shlomo Karhi argued that the legal membership threshold was mandatory and that a regulatory council failing to satisfy the requirement could not possess authority merely because a court ordered it to continue operating. Yariv Levin similarly maintained that the rule of law applies to courts as well as ministers and that legislation enacted by the Knesset remains the source of governmental authority.

The government’s formal declaration also said it would pursue legal avenues to nullify the June 17 judgment. Yossi Fuchs later emphasised this part of the decision, arguing that the cabinet had not instructed officials to ignore the Supreme Court but had instead announced an intention to contest the ruling.

That explanation has not eliminated concerns because the declaration simultaneously states that the government will not recognise actions taken by the regulator under the authority of the ruling. The practical question is whether executive agencies will comply if the Second Authority for Television and Radio approves a transaction or issues a regulatory direction before another court decision is obtained.

The distinction between legal challenge and institutional defiance may therefore depend on what the government does next. Filing additional petitions or seeking clarification would remain within the judicial process. Refusing to implement a final and binding ruling without obtaining further legal relief would create a more direct confrontation.

Why are critics calling the dispute a possible constitutional crisis in Israel?

The controversy is unusually sensitive because Israel does not have a single consolidated written constitution defining every boundary between the executive, legislature and judiciary. The country instead relies on Basic Laws, ordinary legislation, judicial precedent and institutional conventions to organise governmental authority.

The Supreme Court plays an especially important role in reviewing government actions and legislation. Critics of the cabinet decision argue that the Israeli system cannot function if the executive decides independently which court judgments it considers valid.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara warned that the cabinet’s position undermined fundamental principles of the rule of law and threatened the justice system. President Isaac Herzog said disobedience to a court judgment represented a line that should not be crossed under any circumstances.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid described the decision as an attack on the foundations of Israeli democracy. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said failure to respect judgments could lead to institutional breakdown, while Gadi Eisenkot accused the government of acting against democratic government.

The immediate regulatory consequences may remain limited if the council makes no major decisions before the legal dispute is resolved. The constitutional significance is broader because the cabinet’s declaration could establish a precedent for rejecting court rulings in disputes involving elections, ministerial powers, security policies or appointments.

How does the media dispute connect with Israel’s unresolved judicial overhaul battle?

The confrontation revives the conflict created by the government’s judicial overhaul programme after Benjamin Netanyahu returned to office following the 2022 election. Yariv Levin led proposals intended to reduce the Supreme Court’s ability to review government decisions and increase political influence over the appointment of judges.

Supporters argued that unelected judges and legal officials had acquired excessive authority over policies approved by elected governments. Opponents said the overhaul would weaken checks on executive power and threaten judicial independence.

The programme triggered months of large demonstrations, resistance from professional organisations and warnings about economic and military consequences. The Supreme Court later invalidated a major law limiting the judiciary’s use of the reasonableness standard, ruling that the measure caused serious damage to Israel’s democratic structure.

Much of the overhaul was suspended after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, as political attention shifted towards war, national security and the hostage crisis. Parts of the programme have nevertheless returned through legislation and institutional disputes involving judicial appointments, the attorney general and broadcasting regulation.

The Second Authority case is therefore being interpreted through a larger history. A disagreement over the quorum of a media council would ordinarily be a narrow administrative issue. It has become a national democratic dispute because the government and Supreme Court have spent several years contesting the limits of one another’s authority.

Could the confrontation affect Channel 13, Channel 14 and Israel’s media market?

The dispute may have direct commercial consequences because the Second Authority for Television and Radio oversees decisions affecting major broadcasters.

One unresolved matter involves the possible sale of Channel 13, a leading commercial television network that has frequently carried reporting and commentary critical of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The proposed transaction would transfer control to a group of technology entrepreneurs and may require regulatory approval.

The confrontation could also affect the regulatory status of Channel 14, a right-leaning broadcaster supportive of Benjamin Netanyahu. Channel 14 has been treated as a small channel, a classification that provides certain benefits and exemptions. The regulator may need to determine whether the broadcaster should continue receiving that status as its audience and market position develop.

Critics of Shlomo Karhi’s wider communications reform say the government is seeking greater influence over broadcasting regulation and public media. The government presents the proposed changes as an attempt to increase competition, modernise outdated rules and reduce the influence of existing media institutions.

The regulatory deadlock creates uncertainty for investors and broadcasters because decisions could become vulnerable to competing interpretations. A transaction approved by the council could be recognised by the Supreme Court but rejected by ministries following the cabinet declaration, potentially producing further litigation and operational delays.

Why does the dispute matter ahead of Israel’s expected national election?

Israel is expected to hold a national election in September or October 2026, although the exact date has not been finalised. The judicial confrontation is likely to become an important campaign issue because Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition and its opponents offer sharply different interpretations of the Supreme Court’s democratic role.

Government supporters may view the media regulator case as evidence that the Supreme Court is overriding clear legislation and protecting unelected institutions from democratic accountability. The opposition is likely to present the same decision as proof that the government is willing to disregard legal restraints when court judgments interfere with its objectives.

Media regulation is particularly sensitive during an election period. Decisions involving broadcaster ownership, exemptions and market access can influence the commercial strength of television networks that shape public debate and political coverage.

Reuters reported that opinion polls have indicated Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition could lose the coming election, although electoral outcomes remain uncertain and may change before voting begins. Likud politicians preparing for party primaries may seek support from voters who favour stronger action against the judiciary and media institutions portrayed by the coalition as hostile.

Opposition parties have warned that normalising rejection of court decisions could become more dangerous if a dispute develops over election rules, the timing of voting or the transfer of power. The government has not announced any intention to reject an election result, and such warnings remain political arguments about the potential precedent created by the media case.

What happens if the government and Supreme Court maintain conflicting positions?

The most immediate possibility is further litigation seeking clarification, reconsideration or enforcement of the June 17 decision. Government lawyers may argue that the ruling should be narrowed or withdrawn because the council lacks the membership required by statute.

The Supreme Court could issue additional directions explaining which decisions the council may take and how government ministries must respond. Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara may also advise public authorities that the court’s judgment remains binding unless it is formally changed.

A deeper conflict would emerge if the regulator makes a consequential decision and the government refuses to implement it. The affected broadcaster, investor or other party could return to court, requiring judges to determine whether officials had violated the earlier judgment.

Civil servants and regulatory personnel could then face competing instructions from ministers, government legal advisers and the judiciary. Israel’s institutional system relies heavily on officials accepting legal interpretations issued by the attorney general and courts, making sustained disagreement potentially disruptive.

Political compromise remains possible. The government could fill vacant council positions through a selection process acceptable to the court, restoring the statutory membership threshold and reducing the practical importance of the June ruling.

The dispute could also remain largely symbolic until the election. Even then, the declaration would continue influencing Israel’s constitutional debate because it raises the question of who determines the limits of judicial power when the government and the Supreme Court interpret the same law differently.

What are the key takeaways from Israel’s Supreme Court and media regulator confrontation?

• Israel’s cabinet unanimously approved a declaration on July 5, 2026, saying it would not recognise decisions by the Second Authority for Television and Radio while the regulator allegedly remains below the statutory membership threshold.
• The declaration challenges a June 17 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the previous media council to continue functioning after a separate court order froze the activities of new members appointed by the government.
• Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi argue that the Supreme Court cannot permit a regulator to operate without satisfying an explicit legal membership requirement enacted by the Knesset.
• Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs said the government had not ordered officials to disobey the Supreme Court and would instead use legal mechanisms to challenge and overturn the ruling.
• President Isaac Herzog, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and opposition leaders warned that refusing to implement a binding judgment could undermine the rule of law and provoke a wider constitutional crisis.
• The dispute could affect approval of the proposed Channel 13 sale and the continuing classification of Channel 14 as a small broadcaster receiving regulatory benefits and exemptions.
• The confrontation revives divisions created by the government’s 2023 judicial overhaul programme, which triggered mass protests before being largely suspended following the October 7 Hamas attack.
• Israel is expected to hold an election by late October 2026, making judicial authority, media regulation and the relationship between elected officials and the Supreme Court increasingly important campaign issues.