Lobby 99 v. Second Authority for Television and Radio — Supreme Court ordered the Communications Minister to justify expanded radio broadcast areas

Case
Lobby 99 Ltd. (Public Benefit Company) and Hatzlacha—Promoting a Fair Society v. Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio et al.
Court
Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice (Israel)
Date Decided
September 1, 2026
Citation
HCJ 61868-03-26
Topics
Broadcast Regulation; Administrative Law; Radio Licensing; Order to Show Cause

Background

Lobby 99 and Hatzlacha petitioned the High Court of Justice against the Second Authority for Television and Radio, government bodies, several radio stations, the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, the Minister of Communications, the Home Front Command, and the military communications and cyber-defense directorate. The petition sought an order to show cause concerning the regulation of radio broadcasting.

At issue were decisions made by the Minister of Communications on May 11, 2026, expanding the authorized broadcast areas of five respondent radio stations: Radio A-Shams, Radio Nas, Radio Kol Chai, Radio Kol Barama, and Radio Peravia. The Court held hearings on May 4, May 20, and August 26, 2026.

The Court’s Holding

After considering the parties’ arguments at the August 26 hearing, the Court issued an order to show cause directing the Minister of Communications to explain why his May 11 decisions expanding the five stations’ broadcast areas should not be annulled.

The Court required answering affidavits to be filed by October 4, 2026. The decision was procedural and did not annul the Minister’s decisions or resolve the petition’s merits.

Key Takeaways

  • The Minister of Communications must defend the legality of his decisions expanding five radio stations’ broadcast areas.
  • The Supreme Court has not yet determined whether those decisions were lawful or should be annulled.
  • The respondents’ answering affidavits are due by October 4, 2026.

Why It Matters

The order moves the challenge into a merits-focused stage by requiring the Minister to formally justify the broadcast-area expansions. It signals judicial scrutiny of the administrative basis for altering the geographic reach of regulated radio stations.

Because this is an order to show cause rather than a final judgment, the decision’s immediate significance is procedural: the challenged expansions remain subject to possible annulment, but the Court has not yet granted that relief.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top