The Reality of Judicial Reforms: Lessons from Israel
10% of a country’s population all protesting is not an everyday phenomenon. Surprisingly, Israel has been experiencing this for almost three months now. Since January, nearly a million people have taken to the streets to protest. They’ve shut down roads, schools, and even the non-emergency units of hospitals. People are so furious that they were even willing to start hunger strikes in order to demonstrate their determination to protect the status quo.
What is at the root of all this protesting? Judicial reform, but in the wrong direction. The so-called judicial “reforms” proposed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative coalition’s thin legislative majority entail severe erosion of judicial independence and the weakening of judicial review. These reforms are all in an attempt to reinforce the absolute authority of Netanyahu’s ruling faction. Specifically, the government would gain a more decisive say on who becomes a judge, as it replaces the current structure of bar associations and acting judges. Simultaneously, the ability of the Israeli Supreme Court to review or overturn unconstitutional laws would be severely curtailed, requiring 80% of judges on the same side of an issue in order to make rulings. Finally, the governing party also gains the power to veto judicial decisions with a simple majority, which would grant Netanyahu’s allies easy access to overturn any decisions they dislike.
The proposed reforms are in line with the rest of Netanyahu’s corrupt behavior. In light of his own impending trial regarding allegations of fraud and the acceptance of bribes, Netanyahu has already ensured, through legislation, that the acting attorney general can no longer remove him from office. Netanyahu sparked further public outrage when he fired his Minister of Defense after the latter expressed discontent with the judicial proposals. Protests erupted in Tel Aviv, with hundreds of thousands marching on the roads that night. Under such severe pressure, Netanyahu reluctantly announced the postponement of the vote on his reforms by a month. However, the future is dim — counter-protests in favor of the changes have begun in the last two weeks, and Netanyahu still has the full support of his cabinet as well as a unified majority coalition in the legislature.
Conservative parties worldwide are consolidating their power with a myriad of measures, and Israel is not the first country to do so in the judicial realm. After the election of Poland’s Law & Justice Party in 2015, it passed similar “reforms” to Poland’s courts, such as creating an arbitrary “disciplinary chamber” to punish judges who participated in vaguely defined “political activities.” Coupled with smear campaigns and personal attacks, the Law & Justice Party’s measures have gravely threatened judicial independence in Poland and many judges were coerced to bend to the demands of the ruling populist party. These reforms are additional confirmation of the surge of right-wing movements in democracies across the globe.
The case of Israel also serves as a warning for the U.S. With the current 6-3 conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, and the Biden Administration lining up several potential reforms to the judiciary, it is paramount to examine the proposals closely. We must keep the integrity of the American judiciary from being tarnished and degraded to a mere political tool wielded by the ruling majority. For instance, term limits would likely be a fairly acceptable reform, as two-thirds of Americans support them and they would do little to undermine existing judicial independence if passed. A nuanced version of term limits for judges would balance the courts ideologically and lower instances of obstruction (i.e. the Merrick Garland nomination in 2016), hopefully improving the function of the judiciary branch.
On the other end of proposed reforms, a measure like court-packing would mean treading down a dangerous road that could lead to what is happening in Israel right now. Some have proposed for Democrats to expand the size of the Supreme Court and get more liberal judges to fix the current partisan imbalance. Expanding the court has gained traction among powerful figures, such as Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren. This is the exact type of “reform” the U.S. must avoid, as it sets an abominable precedent that parties can expand the courts for political gain. This would lead to a perpetual struggle in which both parties constantly increase the number of judges, and an oversized panel of justices will almost certainly reduce the legitimacy of the judiciary. Fortunately, only 38% of Americans are on board with expanding the court, and Biden has explicitly spoken out against such adjustments. However, this expansion would be going down a path of no return.
With the horrifying rollback of judicial independence that will inevitably unfold in Israel under Netanyahu’s regime, America must not follow in its footsteps. It is imperative that political motives are properly reined in to guarantee that an independent judiciary, one of the cornerstones of American democracy, be preserved.
Leo Huang ‘26 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at h.yuliu@wustl.edu.