A blow to Sharren Haskel: The Supreme Court rejected the MK's petition against the Likud
The Supreme Court rejected this evening (Sunday) the petition of MK Sharren Haskel against the Likud and the New Right (Yamin HaMamlahti) faction, in which she requested to be recognized as a single-member faction and to be allowed to split from the faction ahead of the 26th Knesset elections. However, the ruling included a significant note stating that the way the Likud and the New Right chose to implement the agreements between them might raise a legal difficulty, as it could infringe on the right of MKs who oppose the merger to split.
The Supreme Court rejected this evening (Sunday) the petition of MK Sharren Haskel against the Likud and the New Right (Yamin HaMamlahti) faction, in which she requested to be recognized as a single-member faction and to be allowed to split from the faction ahead of the 26th Knesset elections. However, the ruling included a significant note stating that the way the Likud and the New Right chose to implement the agreements between them might raise a legal difficulty, as it could infringe on the right of MKs who oppose the merger to split.
The full ruling
The petition was filed against the backdrop of an agreement signed between the Likud and the New Right, then the New Hope faction, in March 2025. The original agreement stipulated that the New Right faction would merge with the Likud, subject to the approval of the Knesset Committee. The agreement also included a series of political understandings, including the integration of New Right members into the Likud, the possibility of reserving a candidate on the Likud list, and running together in the 26th Knesset elections. However, on July 14, 2026, instead of completing the formal merger process, the two factions agreed on a change in the outline: they would run in the next elections on a joint list of candidates, while the other provisions of the agreement would remain in force with the necessary changes. This agreement was at the center of Haskel's petition.
Haskel argued that in practice this is a merger for all intents and purposes, even if it was not completed formally. According to her, the two factions had already been operating for a long time in close coordination, integrated their political activities, and began preparing together for the elections. She argued that avoiding the completion of the official merger prevents her from exercising the right established by law to split from a faction that is merging with another faction.
Haskel's argument directly concerned Section 59 of the Knesset Law. The law allows, under certain conditions, an MK who opposes the merger of their faction to split from it. In such a case, unlike a regular resignation, there are different consequences regarding their parliamentary status and party funding. The court explained that an MK who splits in accordance with the section can be recognized as a single-member faction and run in the next elections as part of another party.
However, the judges determined that Haskel filed her petition with a significant delay. The merger agreement was signed as early as March 2025, but Haskel approached the Knesset Committee only on July 14, 2026, a few days before the "determining day" for calculating election funding advances. The court noted that the 26th Knesset elections were scheduled for no later than October 27, so the determining date fell on July 18, or July 19 due to the fact that July 18 fell on a Saturday. Justice Isaac Amit, with the agreement of Justices Dafna Barak-Erez and Alex Stein, determined that this was a "substantial delay" that justified rejecting the petition. The ruling emphasized that Haskel did not act for more than a year to realize the claim that the merger was already being implemented in practice, and did not even approach the court when, in her view, the actions indicating the merger began to take place. The judges added that the delay also weakens the argument that the opposition to the merger existed throughout the period.
Even on the merits, the Supreme Court did not accept Haskel's position. The court noted that the New Right continued to operate as a separate faction in the Knesset: it was represented separately in the relevant institutions, received separate allocations of offices, budgets, and personnel, and not a single joint faction meeting was held with the Likud. The Likud also argued that the merger was not completed and that a change in the structure of the factions in the Knesset requires the approval of the Knesset Committee.
But then came the note that may be significant for the future. Alongside the rejection of the petition, President Isaac Amit expressed reservations about the outline reached by the Likud and the New Right, according to which instead of completing the merger of the factions, they would run together in the elections. Amit determined that such an arrangement "might raise a difficulty," as it could deny an MK who opposes the merger the possibility of effectively exercising a right granted to them by law. However, he clarified that Haskel's case is not suitable for deciding the issue, but left an opening for its examination in the future by writing that "it is possible that an agreement of this kind will require, at the appropriate opportunity, a separate discussion."
The Supreme Court also emphasized the judicial restraint required regarding political agreements and internal parliamentary matters. According to the ruling, when it comes to an agreement with a distinctly political character, the court will intervene only in exceptional cases, for example, when the agreement is illegal or contrary to public policy. In the current case, no such argument was presented that would justify its intervention.
Haskel's petition is part of the political confrontation that has intensified since the completion of the move by Gideon Sa'ar and the New Right members towards the Likud. Haskel, who opposed joining the Likud, founded the "Israel First" party in July and requested to be allowed to leave the New Right faction and run independently.
Ultimately, Haskel did not get what she wanted: the Supreme Court rejected the petition and did not force the Likud and the New Right to complete the official merger. However, alongside the rejection, the ruling places a legal question mark over the outline in which the two parties chose to run together in the elections, especially regarding the rights of MKs who do not wish to take part in the move. This issue, as emerges from the ruling, may yet return to the legal table in the future.
