Background
The Second Authority for Television and Radio is Israel’s statutory regulator for commercial broadcasting, overseeing major outlets including Channels 12 and 13. Its governing council is appointed by the government. In late March 2026, the government issued two decisions — on 24 March and 31 March — regarding the composition of a new (“incoming”) council. Five petitioners, including the Israel Journalists’ Organization, the Israeli News Company, the Movement for Quality Government, the Press and Media Council, and the Association for the Preservation of Legal Values, challenged those appointments before the High Court of Justice, arguing they were unlawful. The court issued a temporary order on 15 May 2026 blocking the change pending further proceedings.
As the case developed, members of the existing (“outgoing”) council began submitting resignations. The court received affidavits from the resigning members and from the Minister of Communications. These materials revealed a troubling pattern: the resignations were directed specifically at the outgoing council only, with the resigning members simultaneously insisting on their right to serve on the incoming council. The timing of the resignations closely tracked both the Minister’s direct contacts with those members and the court’s own prior orders.
The consolidated petitions came before a three-justice panel comprising President Yitzhak Amit and Justices Alex Stein and Ruth Ronen. The court considered written and oral submissions from all parties before issuing the present interim decision.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued a full interim order (צו ביניים) — upgrading its earlier temporary order — freezing the government’s decisions of 24 March 2026 and 31 March 2026 in their entirety and with all consequences. Pursuant to Section 8(b) of the Second Authority for Television and Radio Law, 5750-1990, the outgoing council shall continue to serve in its current composition until the court issues a final judgment on the merits or otherwise orders.
On the resignation gambit, the court found “grave suspicion” (chashad kaved) that the resignations were engineered solely to frustrate the court’s prior orders and to paralyze the outgoing council’s ability to function during the interim period. Three factors drove this conclusion: evidence that the Minister or his agents directly contacted resigning members regarding their departures; the strikingly suspicious temporal sequence between those contacts, the resignations, and the court’s own rulings; and the fact that virtually all resigning members chose to resign only from the outgoing council while asserting a desire to sit on the incoming one — conduct the court noted is also inconsistent with the statutory duty of loyalty owed by a council member under Section 13 of the Second Authority Law.
To prevent deliberate disruption and paralysis of the council during the interim period, the court ruled that the resigning members shall not be counted for quorum purposes of the outgoing council, with all attendant consequences including for Sections 17 and 21 of the Second Authority Law (which govern meeting quorum and decision-making). The court also clarified that the specific restriction contained in paragraph 3 of the 15 May 2026 temporary order will no longer apply. Final judgment on the merits will be issued as soon as possible.
Key Takeaways
- The High Court of Justice issued a full interim order freezing the government’s March 2026 decisions restructuring the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio, preserving the outgoing council’s authority pending a ruling on the merits.
- The court identified a “grave suspicion” that the Communications Minister orchestrated targeted resignations by outgoing council members to circumvent prior court orders — a finding grounded in the timing, the Minister’s direct contacts with members, and the selective nature of the resignations (outgoing council only, not the incoming one).
- As a direct remedy for this apparent abuse, the court held that resigning members will be excluded from the outgoing council’s quorum count, neutralizing the tactic and preserving the council’s functional capacity until judgment.
- The court signaled that such conduct may be incompatible with the statutory duty of loyalty owed by council members under the Second Authority Law.
Why It Matters
This decision is a striking example of a supreme court using interim relief not merely to preserve the status quo, but to counter what it characterizes as deliberate executive-branch conduct aimed at rendering judicial oversight ineffective. By expressly finding that ministerial involvement in the resignations constituted a scheme to “frustrate and paralyze” the court’s orders, the panel sent a clear message that coordinated maneuvers to circumvent injunctions will be addressed on their own terms — here, by adjusting the quorum rules to strip the tactic of legal effect.
The case also carries significant implications for press freedom and the independence of broadcast regulation in Israel. The Second Authority governs the country’s major commercial news channels, and the disputed council appointments go to the heart of who controls that regulatory body. The court’s willingness to escalate from a temporary to a full interim order, and to call out ministerial conduct in unusually pointed terms, underscores the high stakes that courts attach to preserving the structural independence of media regulators from direct government control.