9 in favor, 0 against: Supreme Court struck down the law freezing arrests of Haredi draft evaders
Nine Supreme Court justices struck down the amendment to the law that prevented the arrest of Haredi draft evaders. The justices justified the decision by citing fundamental flaws in the legislative process.
The Supreme Court has ordered the unanimous cancellation of the law freezing the arrests of Haredi draft evaders. Nine Supreme Court justices struck down the amendment that previously prevented the arrest of Haredi individuals evading military service.
The Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Noam Sohlberg, who authored the main opinion, determined with the agreement of all panel members that:
"The amendment that was enacted deviates substantially from the subject of the bill that passed in the first reading. This is a law that did not pass in the first reading, so that in the legislative process of the amendment there was a flaw that goes to the root of the matter, such that requires ordering its cancellation."
The decision further stated:
"It was determined by the opinion of eight of the panel members, contrary to the dissenting opinion of Judge D. Mintz, that the amendment is unconstitutional also on its merits, as it severely harms the core of the constitutional right to equality, in a way that does not meet the conditions of the limitation clause."
The law on exemption from arrests, which passed in the second and third readings in mid-July 2026 by a majority of 58 to 54, was intended to prevent for five months any enforcement, investigation, or arrest procedures against Haredi yeshiva students who failed to report for recruitment. The legislation included a mechanism of declarations and checks, as well as a list of yeshivas to be determined by the Minister of Defense, taking into account recommendations from the Yeshiva Committee and Ministry of Education supervision mechanisms.
The legal advisor to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee also sharply criticized the law, defining it as a "sectoral exemption" that lacks a balancing mechanism to reduce inequality. In her opinion, she warned that an arrangement exempting a specific group from the obligation to comply with the Security Service Law, without effective supervision or complementary sanctions, intensifies the constitutional difficulty of the proposal.
