Background
The Professors for National Resilience and fourteen individual professors challenged the continued legal representation of respondent Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi by reservist defense counsel assigned through the Chief Military Defense Office. They alleged that the military defense office lacked authority to continue representing her after she was removed from military service on May 26, 2026. They also contended that providing representation during the period between her suspension in October 2025 and her final removal was extremely unreasonable.
The petitioners further sought an order requiring the military defense office to establish uniform and equal criteria for providing legal representation, or to publish any criteria already governing such decisions. They requested interim relief immediately halting public funding for Tomer-Yerushalmi’s representation pending judgment. Before the merits were considered, the petition passed from Justice David Mintz, who recused himself, to Court President Yitzhak Amit. The petitioners unsuccessfully sought Amit’s recusal and later withdrew their appeal from that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously dismissed the petition at the threshold for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. President Amit explained that a petitioner must first approach the competent authority and properly present the claims and requested relief, thereby giving the authority an opportunity to consider and answer them. A general communication that does not adequately set out the petition’s arguments and requested remedies does not satisfy that obligation.
Although the petitioners had sent two letters to the military defense office in October and November 2025, most of the claims later raised in the petition had not been properly detailed in those letters. More importantly, the petition focused principally on the continuation of representation after Tomer-Yerushalmi’s removal from military service in May 2026—an event occurring after the letters were sent. Despite attaching substantial importance to that factual change, the petitioners made no updated approach to the respondents before filing. The Court therefore did not reach the legality or reasonableness of the representation itself.
The request for an interim order was dismissed together with the petition. Because the Court had not requested a preliminary response from the respondents, it made no order for costs.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner seeking relief in the High Court of Justice must first give the competent authority a meaningful opportunity to consider the specific claims and remedies later presented in court.
- Earlier correspondence may not exhaust administrative remedies when the petition primarily relies on a significant factual development that occurred afterward.
- The dismissal was procedural and did not decide whether the military defense office had authority to continue the representation or whether its decision was unreasonable.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that exhaustion in Israeli administrative litigation is a substantive precondition, not a formality. A pre-litigation demand must reflect the material facts, legal objections, and relief ultimately placed before the Court.
For challenges involving continuing government action, parties should renew their approach to the relevant authority after a material change in circumstances. Failure to do so can end the case before the court examines the challenged action on its merits.