Israel’s High Court of Justice rejected a petition on Sunday that sought to revoke Justice Isaac Amit’s appointment as Supreme Court president, a move that has triggered significant legal and constitutional discussions within Israel’s judiciary and political landscape.

The petition, filed by individuals associated with right-wing organizations Lavi and Im Tirtzu, challenged the legality of Justice Amit’s appointment under the current judicial selection framework. It argued that the process violated principles of judicial independence and transparency. The High Court, however, dismissed the claim outright, affirming that the appointment adhered to established legal and procedural standards. Justice Minister Yariv Levin and other members of the right-wing governing coalition have stated that they will not recognize Amit as chief justice and will refuse to work with him, citing allegations that he presided over multiple instances in which he had conflicts of interest. Regardless, Justice Amit is slated to assume the presidency of the Supreme Court later this year.

Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid described the ruling as a “victory for democracy and proper administration,” and urged Levin to “stop the destructive games, and work with the judge to strengthen and restore the legal system.”

The Israel Democracy Institute notes that the procedure for selecting the Supreme Court president is governed by seniority rules and established precedents, which is carried out in strict compliance with the law. The court’s decision also underscores the growing tension between Israel’s judicial system and its political leadership. As the government continues to push for controversial reforms, the judiciary’s ability to maintain its independence will remain a focal point of legal and political debates.

Justice Amit’s presidency is likely to be shaped by these challenges, as he navigates the court’s role in safeguarding democratic principles while addressing calls for reform.