The court ruled by a narrow 5-4 majority that the provision, allowing the minister to outline general principles and set fundamental priorities for police investigations, violated constitutional rights and could not stand.

However, other aspects of the law were upheld unanimously by the nine-judge panel. These include clauses that permit the minister to delineate broader police policies and operational principles, including priorities, work programs, and general guidelines. The court emphasized that these provisions do not undermine the independence of the police or the authority of the police commissioner.

The “Ben-Gvir Law” has been a lightning rod for criticism since its enactment, with opponents warning that it grants excessive powers to the national security minister and risks politicizing law enforcement.

Petitioners, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and the Movement for Quality Government, argued that the law endangers democratic rights by allowing political interference in policing decisions. They contended that the provision enabling the minister to influence investigation policies posed a severe threat to freedoms such as protest and expression and undermined the independence of law enforcement.

Critics also highlighted the potential for conflicts of interest, noting that the minister would have authority over investigations into corruption and misconduct involving public officials. Former Police Commissioner Yaakov Shabtai and government legal advisors voiced grave concerns during hearings, warning that the law could erode the professionalism and apolitical nature of the Israel Police.

The High Court’s majority opinion, led by acting Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit found that the provision on investigation policies infringed on constitutional rights and failed the “limitation clause,” which restricts government actions that infringe on basic rights. In contrast, the minority opinion argued that the provision was not constitutionally flawed.

Regarding the upheld sections of the law, the court clarified that these do not grant the minister operational control over police actions but only the authority to outline general policy.

“The relationship between the government and the police remains unchanged in practice,” the ruling stated, emphasizing that the law’s provisions are limited to high-level policy guidance.

Ben-Gvir responded sharply to the ruling, accusing the High Court of undermining the democratic process. “The court is trampling on the will of the voters,” he said. “In a democratic country, it is the minister who sets policy for the police, not the judiciary.”

The “Ben-Gvir Law” was part of the coalition agreements when the government was formed in December 2022, and its enactment has drawn widespread criticism both domestically and internationally. During the hearings, justices and legal experts questioned the rationale behind the law, with Justice Alex Stein remarking that no comparable legal system grants such powers to a minister.

Expressing concern over the potential erosion of public trust, Acting Court President Amit said, “The citizen cannot sleep peacefully with such a law in place.”