The High Court of Justice is set to convene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday for a closely watched hearing on petitions seeking to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dismiss National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in a case that goes to the core of who decides when political supervision of the police crosses into unlawful interference with law enforcement. The hearing is being held before an expanded nine-justice panel and, in an unusual procedural arrangement, is being broadcast live while closed to the general public over concerns about disruptions in the courtroom.
At stake is not only Ben-Gvir’s future in office, but a broader constitutional line the court has so far been reluctant to draw sharply: how far a minister charged with setting policy may go in pressing the police on protests, investigations, appointments and operational priorities before that involvement becomes unlawful political intervention, and when a prime minister’s refusal to act in response becomes judicially reviewable in its own right.
Netanyahu and the government have cast the petitions as an attempt to transfer authority over the composition of the cabinet from elected officials to the judiciary and the attorney-general, while the attorney-general and petitioners argue the case is no longer about style, rhetoric or policy preferences, but about a cumulative pattern of conduct that has already damaged police independence and the rule of law.
Ben-Gvir is expected to argue that the court lacks both the authority and the legal basis to order his ouster. In his separate response, he has framed the case as nonjusticiable and argued that Basic Law: The Government leaves the power to dismiss a serving minister solely in the hands of the prime minister, not the court. He has also sought to recast the factual record itself, insisting there is no concrete example of unlawful intervention in an investigation, appointment, or protest-policing decision, and contending that the attorney-general has bundled together unrelated incidents to manufacture a cumulative case for dismissal. Ben-Gvir has further argued that Baharav-Miara is conflicted because he has long called for her removal and taken part in efforts to end her tenure.
Baharav-Miara has argued Ben-Gvir’s conduct has caused severe harm to the rule of law
The government and Netanyahu are expected to push a parallel but somewhat broader argument: that whatever one thinks of Ben-Gvir’s conduct, the remedy sought by the petitioners would amount to an unprecedented judicial incursion into core executive power. Their joint response says the petitions unlawfully invade the prime minister’s authority and effectively ask the court, aided by the attorney-general, to decide who may serve in government. The filing argues that many of the episodes cited against Ben-Gvir were public statements, demands for tougher enforcement, or disputes over general policy rather than direct orders in concrete operational matters, and that some cannot be tied to any actual police decision at all.
Baharav-Miara, by contrast, is expected to argue that the threshold has already been crossed. Her position, as set out in her preliminary response and reflected in the filings now before the court, is that Netanyahu should be ordered to explain why he has not removed Ben-Gvir and, absent a dramatic change in circumstances, that an absolute order should be issued.
She has argued that Ben-Gvir’s conduct has caused severe harm to the rule of law, equality in enforcement and the apolitical character of the police, and that the case is built not on one stray outburst but on a series of concrete episodes showing repeated intrusion into professional law-enforcement discretion. Those episodes, as described in the filings, span investigations, promotions, protest policing and operational matters that were meant to remain insulated from political command.
Among the anchors of that argument is the Rinat Saban affair, which has become one of the strongest factual pillars for those seeking Ben-Gvir’s dismissal because it has already generated a direct judicial finding. In February, the Jerusalem District Court ordered Ben-Gvir to promote Superintendent Rinat Saban, ruling that his refusal was unlawful, tainted by extraneous considerations, and harmful to police independence. The attorney-general and petitioners have treated that episode as a rare instance in which the line they say Ben-Gvir repeatedly approached was judicially found to have been crossed.
The petitioners are expected to press the broadest version of the case, arguing that Ben-Gvir’s tenure reflects not merely improper involvement in police independence, but a systematic effort to delegitimize investigations and shield police officers, soldiers and civilians who use force in operational settings from scrutiny. They point to what they describe as a recurring pattern of public attacks on ongoing investigations, prosecutors, military investigators and courts, and argue that his interventions conveyed that professional enforcement bodies should back off. They also lean heavily on the 2024 Sde Teiman and Beit Lid events, arguing that Ben-Gvir’s public attacks on military investigators were followed by real-world pressure on enforcement authorities, underscoring the danger they say flows when a minister with control over the police publicly campaigns against investigative action.
The petitioners also focus on Ben-Gvir’s relationship with the police command structure during 2024, while the legality and limits of the amended Police Ordinance were themselves still under judicial review. They cite then-police chief Kobi Shabtai’s allegation that Ben-Gvir sought to impose a “policy” of not securing humanitarian aid convoys despite cabinet decisions and Netanyahu’s directives, Ben-Gvir’s subsequent move to summon Shabtai to a hearing aimed at ending his tenure early, and the attorney-general’s warning at the time that such steps risked sending a message down the ranks “so they will see and fear.” In the petitioners’ framing, the pattern matters as much as any one event: not because every cited episode is identical, but because together they are said to show a sustained attempt to bend policing and enforcement to political will.