A proposed amendment to the government’s rules of procedure will strip the cabinet of binding constraints, enabling it to adopt decisions “in violation of the law,” including discriminatory budget allocations and abuse of governmental power during an election period, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara said Sunday.
“The government is canceling the restrictions that bind it so that it can act contrary to the law and legal norms,” she said. “The proposal is unlawful.”
Baharav-Miara’s statement was issued alongside a detailed legal opinion authored by Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon, which detailed the legal and constitutional basis for her position and concluded that there is a legal impediment to adopting the proposal.
According to Limon’s opinion, the common denominator of the proposed amendments is that they would fundamentally alter how the government functions, formally enabling it to operate without legal advice – both in the approval of cabinet decisions and in the advancement of primary and secondary legislation.
Each amendment, and certainly their cumulative effect, would undermine the propriety, efficiency, and professionalism of government work and open the door to unlawful decisions, he wrote.
Cabinet decisions have far-reaching consequences for the public
Cabinet decisions adopted at regular government meetings have far-reaching consequences for the public, touching on core areas of life, including security, health, welfare, and the allocation of public funds, he added.
Israel has for some time been witnessing a “severe disruption of the government’s working methods,” Limon said.
This is marked by unripe proposals, last-minute items raised during cabinet meetings without urgency, and initiatives advanced without factual or legal foundations, often in disregard of professional assessments and legal advice in contravention of the law, he said.
The proposal under discussion would exacerbate and entrench this phenomenon, causing serious harm to the public and “opening a very wide door to unlawful government action,” misuse of governmental authority, and improper use of state budgets, Limon said.
One of the central flaws identified in the opinion is the absence of any professional foundation for the proposal, he said, adding that neither the cabinet secretary nor relevant legal professionals were involved in drafting the amendment, and the legal review process, which began only after the proposal was transferred to the Attorney-General’s Office, was never completed.
Moreover, substantive legal comments were rejected, no meaningful dialogue was conducted, and the proposal was brought forward without the comprehensive staff work required for a change of this magnitude, Limon said.
In practice, the proposal seeks to render core elements of the legal advisory system optional, allowing ministers to advance cabinet decisions or legislation without written legal opinions, or to treat such opinions as advisory only, he said.
This approach directly contradicts entrenched Supreme Court jurisprudence, under which the attorney-general’s legal opinions represent the law for the government, and the attorney-general serves as the authorized interpreter of the law unless or until a court rules otherwise, Limon said.
In effect, the proposal would, de facto, implement legislative initiatives currently pending in the Knesset aimed at splitting and weakening the attorney-general’s role through a regulatory amendment rather than primary legislation, he said.
The proposal is incompatible with the High Court of Justice ruling that invalidated the government’s attempt to dismiss Baharav-Miara, Limon said. Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s March 2025 letter proposing a vote of no confidence cited, among other things, her involvement in cabinet decisions and government legislation – precisely the areas targeted by the proposed amendment, he said.
A-G lawfully remains in office, dismissal is void
The High Court had ruled that the attorney-general lawfully remains in office, that the dismissal decision was void, and that any unilateral action altering her status, powers, or methods of work in connection with the attempted dismissal “does not comport with the judgment.”
The current proposal violates that directive, Limon said.
While the legal defects exist at all times, he emphasized that they are particularly acute given the timing: more than three years into the government’s term and months ahead of an election period, when heightened safeguards are required to prevent the misuse of governmental power for objectives not derived from the public interests.
The accelerated promotion of the amendment raises concerns that it is intended to weaken institutional checks and balances through a fast-track regulatory route, after similar legislative efforts had failed, Limon said.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel welcomed the Attorney-General Office’s position. The proposal represented an indirect attempt to neutralize the legal advisory system after the government had failed to dismiss the attorney-general outright, it said.
“A government that failed to fire the attorney-general directly is now trying to circumvent her in a roundabout way,” the movement said, adding that the coalition was seeking to advance decisions and legislation without legal review or oversight.
The deputy attorney-general’s opinion makes clear that the proposal lacks legal foundation, contradicts the High Court’s ruling on the attorney-general’s dismissal, and constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law and principles of good governance, the movement said.
“Instead of strengthening the government’s work, the amendment opens the door to corruption,” it said, calling on the government to abandon the proposal and respect the rule of law.