Background
Three civil-rights organizations petitioned in August 2025 to invalidate section 11A of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), 2022. They also sought interim relief suspending the provision pending resolution of the petition, arguing that its enforcement could cause immediate and irreversible harm to human rights.
Nearly a year passed without preliminary responses because the respondents repeatedly sought extensions. During that period, no response to the interim-relief request was filed, and the Population Authority indicated that it was not prepared to implement section 11A. On July 23, 2026, however, the State announced that it intended to begin partial implementation on August 1, while also seeking until November 1 to respond to the petition. The Knesset took no position on interim relief because the requested order concerned the State’s implementation of the law; the State opposed relief based on the law’s presumption of constitutionality and the standards governing interim orders against legislation.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez issued a limited temporary order designed to prevent irreversible consequences before the respondents had addressed the petition on the merits. The Court ordered that section 11A(a) not be applied solely because of conduct attributed to a person’s family member. The order did not disturb section 11, under which a permit or license may be denied when a security impediment exists, and it expressly allowed section 11A(a) to be applied to a resident of the Area who had personally been convicted of a terrorist act or was personally engaged in terrorist activity.
The Court declined to suspend section 11A(d), reasoning that it permits discretion in exceptional cases. It did not address section 11A(b), concerning decisions within the area commander’s authority, because the State was not yet prepared to implement that subsection. The temporary order expressed no view on the petition’s ultimate merits and may be reconsidered after the preliminary responses are filed or if implementation plans change. The respondents were given until November 1, 2026, to submit those responses.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling was a limited temporary order, not a final determination that section 11A is unconstitutional.
- Pending further review, section 11A(a) cannot be enforced against a person solely on the basis of a family member’s conduct.
- The order does not protect individuals whose own terrorism conviction or activity triggers the provision, nor does it suspend existing security-based restrictions under section 11.
Why It Matters
The decision temporarily narrows enforcement of a contested citizenship and entry regime immediately before the State planned to begin applying it. It limits potentially irreversible consequences based on familial association while preserving the State’s authority to act on individualized security grounds.
The ruling also underscores that interim judicial intervention against legislation may be tailored to prevent concrete harm without prejudging the constitutional challenge. The validity of section 11A remains unresolved.