High Court warns of ‘anarchy,’ societal breakdown if officials flout its rulings

In response to government’s declaration that a June court ruling was invalid, justices warns that public officials who violate court orders may be liable to civil damages suits

The judiciary and the government continued to trade blows in an ongoing constitutional clash, with the High Court of Justice warning Tuesday of societal breakdown and unrestrained government power if elected and public officials do not abide by court rulings.

The court also cautioned that elected and public officials who do not abide by court rulings may not enjoy immunity from civil damages suits.

The court made its comments in reference to a declaration by the government on Sunday that it does not view a High Court ruling regarding the Second Authority media regulation body as valid.

The court’s language also appeared to be a warning to members of the Second Authority council, among others, to abide by the June ruling that the panel can continue to function despite not having the requisite quorum, and to ignore the government’s statement on the issue.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin hit back, comparing the court to “dictators” while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich accused the court of being a “judicial mafia” that was using “extortion” to achieve its goals.

The war between the judiciary and the government comes against the backdrop of the latter’s four-year campaign to weaken the High Court and legal checks on government power, and to assert greater influence over the judiciary itself.

The High Court on Tuesday quoted directly from a 2007 ruling that warned that the country would descend into legal anarchy if the government or one of its agencies could decide not to abide by a court ruling.

“The obligation to comply with and respect court rulings is among the fundamental conditions upon which the rule of law in a democratic state is founded,” the High Court quoted the 2007 ruling as saying.

“Without compliance with court rulings, the principle of the rule of law is undermined, and social order disintegrates. Everyone will do as they see fit, and the distance between the rule of law and anarchy is but a hair’s breadth.”

The court went on to say that its warning applied to the current circumstances and to “the actions of elected officials and public officials, who are all required to act in accordance with the law.”

Actions by public officials in contravention of judicial decisions could mean that the personal immunity from civil damages suits usually enjoyed by such officials “will not apply,” the court added, in an apparent warning to the Second Authority council members.

The court issued its statement as a “decision” to make it part of the official case record and to formally express how it expects the existing law and prior court orders to be respected.

Levin hit back immediately. “Like common dictators who have lost the public’s trust, they are threatening to use force to suppress those who demand justice. They will not succeed,” he wrote on Facebook.

“It is time for the justices to engage in some soul-searching about how they reached such a low point. Respect for the law and respect for democratic decisions are obligations incumbent on every citizen — even if that citizen is a justice of the Supreme Court.”

Smotrich called the court a “judicial mafia,” and described its comments about public officials’ immunity from civil suits as extortion.

“This is exactly what a threatening message from a protection racket sounds like… What’s next? Envelopes with bullets sent to government ministries? A horse’s head in their beds? Bottles of gasoline left on the cars of elected officials?”

Karhi, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, likewise denounced the court over its warning, declaring that “the clarion call heralding the government’s and the people of Zion’s freedom from the yoke of the High Court has already been sounded.”

The case itself revolves around petitions accusing Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi of making political appointments to the council, in an effort to stymie the acquisition of Channel 13 by a group of high-tech entrepreneurs led by a prominent government critic, which the council must decide whether or not to approve.

In March, the Union of Journalists in Israel and the Movement for Quality Government in Israel petitioned the High Court against what it said were political appointments to the Second Authority council, and in May the court froze the activities of the council until a final decision on the issue.

Following the May ruling and the apparently dim view the High Court took of the new appointments, six members of the Second Authority council resigned one after the other — reportedly under heavy pressure from Karhi — taking the number of members down to nine out of 15, meaning that the council could no longer function due to the quorum requirement.

It also meant, specifically, that the council would not be able to make a decision on the Channel 13 acquisition.

In June, in the wake of that development, the High Court issued an especially sharp ruling against Karhi and the government, alleging that the resignations were designed to thwart the court’s ability to rule on the issue. It therefore unfroze the council’s operations and ruled that the apparently coordinated resignations would not count when bearing in mind the necessary quorum for the council’s operations, meaning that the council could continue to carry out its functions and, in theory, deal with the Channel 13 acquisition.