By Priya Raman

Israel's Knesset voted 64 to 56 on July 24, 2023, to pass a law that expands the governing coalition's control over the appointment of judges, a central plank of the judicial overhaul pushed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. The measure cleared its final reading after opposition lawmakers boycotted the vote in protest.

The deciding body is the Knesset, Israel's parliament, and the jurisdiction is the State of Israel. The law amends the composition and operation of the nine-member Judicial Selection Committee, the body that appoints judges to the Supreme Court and lower courts.

What does the law change?

Under the prior system, the three sitting Supreme Court justices on the committee effectively held a veto over Supreme Court appointments, because a majority of seven of nine members was required to approve them. The new law removes that requirement for the first two years after it takes effect.

The practical arithmetic matters. The coalition of the day now controls a majority of seats on the committee through its politicians and its coalition-appointed designees, including the justice minister, who chairs the panel. A government can appoint judges — including to the Supreme Court — over the objection of the sitting justices.

The court's own voice in choosing its members is diminished. That is the core of the change.

Why did the opposition boycott?

Opposition parties refused to participate in the final vote, arguing that the law was passed without consensus after months of mass protests across Israel. Demonstrations drawing hundreds of thousands of participants have convulsed the country since January 2023, when the overhaul package was introduced.

Critics of the law say it opens the door to a bench packed with judges acceptable to the governing coalition. The governing coalition says the change rebalances power between elected officials and an unelected judiciary that it views as overreaching.

Neither claim has yet been tested. That is the caveat.

What happens next?

Legal challenges are expected. Opponents have signaled they will petition the Supreme Court to strike down the law — an unprecedented confrontation, since the court would be reviewing a statute that restructures the very mechanism for appointing its own members.

The law's provisions apply for an initial two-year window, after which the seven-of-nine majority requirement returns unless extended. This sunset structure was designed, proponents say, to encourage negotiation on a broader compromise.

What does this mean for practitioners?

For litigators and in-house counsel watching Israel, the immediate consequences are institutional rather than doctrinal. The law does not change any substantive rules of adjudication, but the composition of future benches may shift the court's jurisprudence over time, particularly on review of government action. Foreign parties contracting into Israeli jurisdiction should note that judicial independence — long treated as a stabilizing factor in Israeli risk assessments — is now an open question in a way it was not a year ago.

The Knesset passed the law. Whether it survives the court it seeks to reshape is the next question, and no one can yet answer it.

Takeaway: Israel's governing coalition can now appoint top judges over judicial objections; everything downstream of that fact remains contested.