Ultra-Orthodox Draft and Contempt of Court: What Is the Supreme Court Deciding?

Israel’s Supreme Court heard a petition to hold the government in contempt for failing to enforce rulings on the conscription of ultra-Orthodox citizens into military service. At the same time, the court addressed a request to postpone hearings in the Prime Minister’s criminal trial amid ongoing military operations. Our partner, Adv. Maxim Rakov, former Legal Advisor to Israel’s National Security Council, examines the legal dimensions of both issues.

Q: What happened in the Supreme Court today, and why was petitioners’ counsel Elad Shraga, head of the Movement for Quality Government, so agitated?

A: Adv. Shraga’s occasional courtroom theatrics are nothing new. For decades, when presenting petitions before the Supreme Court, he has been known for sharp remarks. It is part of the process. In this instance, his frustration was triggered by the State Attorney’s comments on the government’s efforts to comply with previous court rulings on ultra-Orthodox conscription. The prosecution essentially said: we are trying, but we are not succeeding. Shraga countered that this was untrue. And he is largely right – the government is simply not doing what it could.

Q: Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs told the Court that the government does not intend to advance the ultra-Orthodox draft bill until the operation against Iran concludes. What is the connection?

A: The government always finds a new reason not to comply with court rulings. As for the Iran angle, Fuchs put it rather creatively: at the army’s request, specifically the Chief of Staff’s, the government would advance the well-known bill that effectively exempts ultra-Orthodox men from military service. However, the army has already denied this. The Chief of Staff never said he supports any particular bill. He said only that legislation is needed to increase the number of conscripts.

Q: Could the Court accept such an explanation?

A: I doubt it. The Court’s position is clear: as long as no new law has been enacted, the existing one must be enforced. And the existing law requires that ultra-Orthodox citizens be conscripted on the basis of equality before the law. The proposed bill, by contrast, seeks to exempt them.

Q: The panel hearing this petition includes three of the five conservative justices – Noam Solberg, David Mintz, and Yael Willner. Will the coalition accept their ruling as objective?

A: We will hear the usual talk of a “left-wing conspiracy.” No composition of the Supreme Court will be seen by the government as binding on this issue – it is entirely political. With elections around the corner, any court ruling will be exploited for political purposes. The bill itself is deeply problematic: even if it passes the Knesset, a petition to the Supreme Court to suspend it will follow immediately. And once again, we will find ourselves in politically charged proceedings.

Q: If the Court finds the government in contempt, what are the actual consequences for the Cabinet?

A: A contempt finding could lead to a formal determination that previous court rulings have not been implemented. In that case, a fine is possible. But since this is a petition against the government rather than against individual officials or ministers, any fine would come from the state budget. In practice, this is largely a declaratory measure: the Court would put on record that the government is defying its rulings. It will not change the situation directly, but it is an attempt by the petitioners to draw attention to the fact that the country is at war while the government fails to increase military personnel, despite the clear need to do so.

Q: The Prime Minister asked a different court to postpone his criminal trial hearings for two weeks, but the court granted only one. Why?

A: Military operations are ongoing, including intensive activity in Lebanon. Negotiations with Lebanon are beginning, requiring the Prime Minister’s involvement. As for Iran, there has been no full cessation of hostilities – only a two-week ceasefire, and the talks between Iran and the United States ended without result, raising the prospect of renewed conflict. The court decided to grant one week and then reassess the situation. It retains full discretion to extend the postponement.

Q: So the court is now effectively tying criminal proceedings to foreign policy developments?

A: This is not a new phenomenon. The court has long taken the Prime Minister’s state duties into account – reducing the number of hearings or excusing him from specific sessions in the event of state visits or other official engagements. Under Israeli constitutional law, a Prime Minister is not required to resign upon indictment, unlike an ordinary minister. He therefore continues to serve as head of government while simultaneously standing trial. It is a balance that the presiding court determines on a case-by-case basis.