Background
Five organizations — the Israel Journalists’ Organization, the Israeli News Company, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Press and Media Council of Israel, and the Association for the Protection of Legal Values — filed separate petitions challenging government actions relating to the composition of the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio. The respondents include the Government of Israel, the Minister of Communications, the Second Authority itself, and numerous individuals nominated or appointed to the Council, including Dr. Yifat Ben Hai-Segev. The cases were consolidated and assigned to a panel of President Yitzhak Amit, Justice Alex Stein, and Justice Ruth Ronen, with a full hearing scheduled for June 16, 2026.
Following the filing of the petitions, six sitting members of the “outgoing” Council — Mr. Amir Assi, Mr. Yoni Shimooni, Prof. Moshe Caspi, Dr. Marlin Wenig, Ms. Chen Kedem Maktubi, and Dr. Dana Raviv — submitted letters of resignation to the Minister of Communications from their positions on that outgoing Council. The parties submitted competing factual accounts regarding the circumstances surrounding those resignations.
The resignations raised discrete legal questions: (1) whether the Minister or those acting on his behalf had directly or indirectly induced the resignees to step down; (2) the individual reasons behind each resignation; and (3) whether it was legally possible under Section 21 of the Second Authority for Television and Radio Law, 5750-1990, for a member to resign from the outgoing Council while retaining a position on the incoming Council.
The Court’s Holding
This is an interim procedural decision, not a ruling on the merits of the petitions. The Court declined to resolve the disputed factual and legal questions surrounding the resignations on the basis of the parties’ competing submissions alone. Instead, the three-justice panel ordered that, before the June 16, 2026 hearing, the resigning council members and the Minister of Communications must each file supplemental responses addressing the three issues identified above.
Crucially, the Court required that those supplemental responses be supported by sworn affidavits — one from the Minister personally and one from each of the six resigning members. The deadline set for filing is June 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The order effectively places the burden on the Minister and the resignees to provide a sworn account of the circumstances surrounding the resignations, including any ministerial involvement, before the substantive hearing proceeds.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court treated the sudden resignations of six outgoing council members as a live factual controversy requiring sworn testimony, signaling skepticism toward the unsubstantiated governmental account.
- The Court specifically flagged the possibility of indirect ministerial interference in the resignations, indicating that the lawfulness of such pressure — if proven — will be examined at the June 16 hearing.
- A discrete statutory question is in play: whether Section 21 of the Second Authority Law permits a person to resign from the outgoing Council without simultaneously relinquishing a seat on the incoming Council, a distinction with potential structural consequences for the Authority’s continuity of governance.
- The requirement of personal affidavits from both the Minister and each resigning member substantially raises the evidentiary stakes ahead of the merits hearing.
Why It Matters
The underlying consolidated petitions go to the heart of Israeli media regulation: they challenge the government’s appointment process for the body that oversees the country’s commercial broadcast licensees (including Channels 12 and 13). The resignations of outgoing council members — arriving in the midst of active litigation — heightened concerns among the petitioners (representing journalists, news companies, and civil-society watchdogs) that political pressure was being used to reshape the Authority’s composition outside of lawful channels.
This decision, though procedural, reflects the Court’s willingness to scrutinize executive conduct over a key regulatory body that directly affects press freedom and pluralism in Israeli broadcasting. The outcome of the June 16 hearing could determine whether the incoming council’s appointments stand, whether the resignations are valid, and what constraints the law places on ministerial influence over broadcast regulators.