Netanyahu battles court over attempt to unseat Ben-Gvir

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally urged Israel’s Supreme Court to reject petitions seeking the removal of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, escalating a legal and constitutional dispute over the limits of judicial authority in shaping the government’s composition.

The filing marks Netanyahu’s first written legal response to the Supreme Court, specifically opposing petitions that seek to remove a sitting minister on governance and administrative grounds.

In a filing submitted Sunday morning ahead of a scheduled hearing before a nine-justice panel, Netanyahu argued that the court is being drawn into a political arena it has no legal standing to enter. The petitions, originally delayed during the war with Iran, are now set to be reviewed on Wednesday after the court issued a conditional order requiring the government to justify why Ben-Gvir remains in office.

At the centre of the case are allegations by petitioners that Ben-Gvir has improperly influenced police conduct, including investigations, senior appointments, and the policing of demonstrations. They argue that his repeated involvement in operational policing undermines the independence of law enforcement and violates prior understandings designed to restrict ministerial interference.

The Supreme Court panel is expected to hear arguments on Wednesday.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara in January asked the Supreme Court to order Netanyahu to explain to justices why he has not removed Ben-Gvir from his position.

Netanyahu’s response, filed through attorney Michael Rabilo, rejects the premise that the judiciary can examine or overturn ministerial appointments. The submission described the petitions as an unprecedented attempt to remove a sitting minister through judicial intervention rather than political accountability.

“This is an unconstitutional attempt to remove a minister – you do not have any authority,” the filing stated, insisting that decisions on the composition of the cabinet rest exclusively with the prime minister and are subject only to public and parliamentary oversight.

The prime minister further argued that the authority to appoint or dismiss ministers is inherently political and belongs to elected leadership alone. According to the filing, judicial involvement in such decisions would violate core democratic principles by shifting power from elected institutions to the courts.

The petitions allege that Ben-Gvir has improperly interfered in police operations, including investigations, senior appointments, and the handling of public protests, in ways that compromise the independence of law enforcement. They argue that this conduct violates previous understandings limiting his authority and undermines basic principles of democratic governance and separation between political leadership and operational policing.

Netanyahu contended that Ben-Gvir’s appointment had been fully approved through Israel’s parliamentary system, including cabinet and Knesset endorsement, and therefore cannot be revisited through judicial review. He dismissed arguments invoking “reasonableness” as an improper legal basis for intervening in ministerial appointments.

The submission added that individual grievances about ministerial actions should be addressed through existing administrative and legal channels rather than through a broad attempt to strike down an appointment. It also asserts that a review of the claims against Ben-Gvir did not produce grounds sufficient to justify his dismissal.

According to Netanyahu, some of the allegations raised by petitioners relate to actions taken before Ben-Gvir’s current tenure or reflect conduct consistent with previous officeholders. The filing further states that in certain sensitive security matters, including policy regarding the Temple Mount, the minister acted in coordination with the prime minister’s office.

The legal challenge has been bolstered by positions previously taken by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who argued that Ben-Gvir exceeded his authority by interfering in police decision-making and weakening institutional independence. She had earlier reached a framework intended to limit his influence over operational policing, but officials say the arrangement ultimately broke down after repeated disputes over compliance.

Netanyahu, however, has rejected calls for dismissal and accused legal authorities of overreach, arguing that efforts to remove Ben-Gvir lack both factual and legal grounding. He has also maintained that there is no criminal investigation against the minister that would justify such an extreme step.