High Court hears petition demanding protection for lawyers from courthouse harassment

The High Court of Justice is hearing a petition on Wednesday demanding stronger protection for lawyers facing harassment inside courthouses, after human rights organizations warned that repeated verbal abuse and aggressive filming had escalated to physical violence.

The case concerns lawyers representing Palestinians and human rights groups who say right-wing activists follow them through the Supreme Court’s corridors, film them at close range and accuse them of supporting terrorism. The petitioners argue that preventing physical attacks alone is insufficient: lawyers must be able to prepare for hearings, consult privately with clients and represent them without intimidation.

Guards instructed to intervene against harassment, humiliation, intimidation of lawyers

The Courts Administration rejects the claim that its protection policy warrants judicial intervention. In an updated response submitted ahead of the hearing, it said security preparations had been strengthened, and guards were explicitly instructed to intervene against filming used to harass, humiliate or intimidate lawyers.

Justices Dafna Barak-Erez, Gila Canfy-Steinitz and Yechiel Kasher began hearing the petition at 10 a.m.

Filed in 2024 by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, HaMoked, Gisha, Yesh Din and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, the petition challenges the policy of the Courts Administration and its director, Judge Tzachi Uziel.

The organizations, represented by attorneys Michael Sfard and Einat Gayer, seek instructions preventing protesters from approaching and harassing lawyers in ways that obstruct their work. They also propose a designated protest area inside the courthouse, separating demonstrations from lawyers and their clients.

Confrontations during hearings concerning humanitarian aid to Gaza and other contested policies

Their latest submission describes confrontations during hearings concerning humanitarian aid to Gaza, prison conditions, punitive home demolitions and other contested policies. It identifies activists from Im Tirtzu in several incidents and argues that repeated involvement by the same individuals calls for measures to prevent further harassment.

Among the most serious allegations is an incident on March 30, 2026, during a hearing over displaced Palestinians’ return to refugee camps in the northern West Bank. According to the petitioners, an activist followed lawyers after they left the courtroom while the justices examined classified material, then violently pushed Association for Civil Rights in Israel attorney Oded Feller as he tried to enter another courtroom.

The filing says footage was provided to the court’s chief secretary and the incident brought to the panel’s attention. Feller submitted an affidavit supporting the account.

The petitioners also describe an October 29, 2025, hearing concerning Red Cross visits to detention facilities, after which a court security officer escorted lawyers and association staff out of the building. They say the group had to crouch behind bushes while awaiting transportation to avoid attracting the hostile crowd.

These incidents, they argue, demonstrate the inadequacy of a policy that leaves lawyers retreating while those harassing them remain free to move around.

“It is not appropriate for lawyers to have to flee and hide from the crowd in a closed room in order to do their work,” the organizations wrote in their reply to the administration’s initial response.

The dispute follows complaints dating back to 2020. Instructions developed after a June 2023 meeting with Sfard treated intrusion into lawyers’ personal space, curses and incitement to violence as disturbances requiring intervention. The administration subsequently said guards had been instructed to maintain a three-meter distance to protect lawyers’ personal space.

Its December 2024 response defended the balance between lawyers’ safety, freedom of expression and public access, and pointed to a Bar Association room available for private work. The petitioners countered that their challenge concerned the policy itself, rather than individual guards’ professionalism, and warned that intimidation could deter lawyers from accepting cases.

In an update submitted on Sunday, the administration cited additional training, advance planning for sensitive hearings and inspections that it said found no departures from instructions. An internal directive clarifying responsibilities and coordination remains under review.

It also cited a December 2025 Supreme Court decision allowing advance restrictions on courtroom attendance when serious disruption is reasonably anticipated, along with livestreaming or screening in another courtroom.

The administration’s latest filing rejects an indoor protest area, stating: “The courthouse is not a place for public protests.” It says guards may respond to disturbances with measures ranging from instructions to removal from the building.

Wednesday’s hearing is set to examine whether those measures adequately protect lawyers’ ability to work, or whether the court should require further changes.