Israel Cabinet Rejects Supreme Court Ruling Over Broadcast Regulator, Sparking Constitutional Crisis

On 5 July 2026, Israel’s cabinet voted to reject a Supreme Court decision that had ordered the country’s broadcast regulator, the Second Authority for Television and Radio, to keep operating despite lacking the statutory quorum required to decide the future of Channel 13. The cabinet’s move— the first time an Israeli government has openly declared it will not comply with a High Court ruling— has ignited fresh concerns about a potential constitutional crisis.

The dispute centers on the Second Authority’s board, the body that regulates commercial television and radio in Israel. The authority’s statutory mandate, established by a 1990 law, requires a two‑thirds quorum of board members to approve changes to the ownership of commercial channels. In early July, several board members resigned, leaving the authority short of the quorum needed to decide whether Channel 13 should be transferred to a new owner. The Supreme Court, citing alleged orchestrated resignations intended to block the transfer to an anti‑Netanyahu camp, ruled that the authority could continue to operate without meeting the quorum requirement.

According to reports from EconoTimes and the Jerusalem Post, the court’s decision was based on the premise that the resignations were a deliberate attempt to prevent the channel’s transfer. The court therefore set aside the statutory quorum requirement and allowed the authority to proceed. The ruling was issued by the Supreme Court, whose president is Yitzhak Amit, who has served in that role since February 2025.

The cabinet’s response was swift. A statement issued by the government said that it would not recognize the ruling because it “contradicts the law.” The cabinet’s spokesperson added that any decision made under the court’s order would be void. This stance marks a departure from the traditional practice in Israel, where the executive has historically complied with Supreme Court decisions.

The conflict has drawn attention from observers of Israel’s rule of law. The Supreme Court’s decision to disregard a clear statutory requirement has been described by some as judicial overreach. Meanwhile, the cabinet’s refusal to comply has been labeled a constitutional crisis by several commentators, including the Times of Israel and the Israel National News.

The dispute also reflects broader tensions between the judiciary and the executive. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on a number of sensitive issues, including the rights of Arab citizens and the legality of government decisions. In recent years, the court’s rulings on judicial reform proposals have been met with resistance from the government, which has pursued a series of changes aimed at limiting the court’s power.

The current crisis could have implications beyond the media sector. If the cabinet’s stance is upheld, it could set a precedent for executive non‑compliance with judicial decisions, potentially undermining the principle of separation of powers that underpins Israel’s democratic system. Conversely, if the court’s ruling is enforced, it would reinforce the judiciary’s authority to interpret and apply the law.

At present, the cabinet’s decision remains in effect, and the Second Authority continues to operate without a quorum. The legal and political ramifications of this unprecedented move are still unfolding, and observers will be watching closely to see whether the government’s stance will be challenged in court or whether the Supreme Court will seek to enforce its ruling.

The situation underscores the fragility of Israel’s constitutional framework and the ongoing debate over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. The outcome of this dispute will likely influence future interactions between the two branches of government and shape the trajectory of Israeli democracy.