Published by Global Banking & Finance Review®
Posted on December 14, 2025
2 min readLast updated: January 20, 2026
Add as preferred source on GoogleThe Israeli Supreme Court ruled against the government's dismissal of the attorney general, impacting Netanyahu's judicial overhaul plans.
JERUSALEM, Dec 14 (Reuters) - Israel's Supreme Court ruled on Sunday against a government push to oust the attorney general, who has sparred with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nationalist-religious coalition over the legality of its policies, court documents showed.
In March, the cabinet held a no-confidence vote against Gali Baharav-Miara, citing substantial differences between the government and the attorney general, who was appointed by the previous government.
But a panel of seven Supreme Court judges said on Sunday the established mechanism for terminating the term of office of an attorney general could not be changed, ruling that as a result the cabinet's no-confidence vote was null and void.
Under the established mechanism to dismiss an attorney general, governments must first consult a professional-public committee, the documents showed.
The judges also cited numerous procedural defects in the government's dismissal of Baharav-Miara that meant it was invalid, saying she continues to hold office lawfully.
There was no immediate response to the ruling from the government or the attorney general's office.
Prior to the war in Gaza, Netanyahu's government launched an overhaul of the Israeli judicial system.
Netanyahu, who has been battling a trial on corruption charges that he denies, said at the time the overhaul was needed to rein in judicial overreach that was intruding on the authority of parliament. Protesters have said it was an attempt to weaken one of the pillars of Israeli democracy.
The overhaul plan was largely halted after Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack that sparked the war. But the cabinet has since revived some parts of its plan to change the justice system.
Baharav-Miara was celebrated by the opposition as a gatekeeper of democracy in 2023 when the judicial overhaul plan that would give elected politicians more power over the Supreme Court was announced.
Differences with Baharav-Miara that have had a direct impact on the governing coalition's stability include an ongoing issue of exemptions granted to ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminary students from military conscription.
(Reporting by Steven Scheer and Maayan Lubell;Editing by Helen Popper)
Judicial overreach occurs when courts exceed their authority or interfere with the functions of the legislative or executive branches, often leading to debates about the balance of power.
A professional-public committee is a group formed to provide expert advice and oversight on specific issues, often involved in the appointment or dismissal processes of public officials.
A legal mechanism refers to the established procedures and rules within the law that govern how certain actions, such as dismissals or appointments, must be carried out.
Explore more articles in the Headlines category
