Attorney-General pushes court to freeze entire Broadcasting Law to rule on petitions challenging it

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara asked the High Court of Justice late Thursday night to freeze Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi's entire Broadcasting Law until it rules on 11 petitions challenging it, arguing that serious failures throughout the legislative process give the petitions an exceptionally strong chance of succeeding.

Baharav-Miara told the court that key parts of the reform reached the Knesset without enough professional work, changed repeatedly without adequate review, and were pushed through a committee effectively controlled by Karhi. She warned that the law could now trigger business and ownership changes that would be difficult to reverse if the court later strikes it down.

The Knesset passed the law 53-48 on July 16, shortly before it dissolved, and published it on July 28. Media companies, journalists' groups and civil-society organizations filed 11 petitions against it.

Justice Ofer Grosskopf issued a temporary order on July 19 blocking provisions that were due to take effect immediately. He did not freeze the law in full at that stage because most of it was scheduled to take effect later. Baharav-Miara is now asking the court to extend the freeze to the entire law until it decides the petitions.

The law is intended to update broadcasting rules written before viewers began routinely watching television online. It creates one regulator to replace the two bodies that currently oversee commercial broadcasters and cable and satellite providers, and changes the rules governing channel distribution, news broadcasting, media ownership and investment in Israeli productions.

Knesset didn't do the necessary work 

Karhi and other supporters of the reform say the existing system is outdated because traditional broadcasters remain subject to restrictions that largely do not apply to internet-based competitors.

Baharav-Miara agreed that the system needs updating, but said the government and Knesset did not do the necessary work before passing this law. She identified four connected problems that she said could justify striking it down.

The first problem began before the bill reached the Knesset. Baharav-Miara said the government had not adequately examined its economic, practical, or legal effects. It published the bill without the approval of the attorney-general or an authorized representative, while the Regulation Authority had identified substantial problems in the Communications Ministry's assessment.

In practical terms, Baharav-Miara argued, lawmakers were asked to fill in gaps that the government should have addressed before submitting the bill. That left the Knesset trying to develop major parts of the reform while simultaneously debating and voting on them.

Her second argument concerned whether MKs had a real opportunity to understand and influence the law. The Knesset special committee established to prepare the bill, chaired by Likud MK Galit Distel Atbaryan, held roughly 60 meetings. But meetings came in rapid succession, drafts changed repeatedly, and major provisions were introduced or rewritten near the end, she said.

Lawmakers were therefore not always given enough time to study individual changes, understand how they worked together, or propose alternatives, she argued.

The High Court rarely intervenes because of how a law was passed; Baharav-Miara said this went beyond a rushed or poorly managed debate and prevented MKs from properly carrying out their role.

Third, she said the pace and constant changes prevented the Knesset's legal advisers from doing their job. They repeatedly sought updated drafts, supporting information and more time, and warned before the final vote that they had not completed their review. MKs later said parts of the text presented to the full Knesset contained mistakes or did not match committee decisions.

Her fourth argument concerned Karhi's role. The bill was sent to the special committee rather than the Economic Affairs Committee, which usually handles communications legislation and is chaired by Likud MK David Bitan, who had opposed parts of the reform.

The Knesset certainly may establish a special committee; Baharav-Miara's objection is that Karhi went beyond promoting his ministry's bill and effectively controlled the panel's timetable, wording, and major decisions.

Baharav-Miara says this weakens the Knesset's independence 

According to the filing, the minister helped draft and change almost every major part of the law. Decisions formally assigned to the committee, including dividing the bill and reopening parts for discussion, were effectively made by Karhi and presented to members afterward, it said.

The attorney-general said this weakened the Knesset's independence: The minister whose policy was under review was also directing much of the review.

Before the final vote, lawmakers removed entire sections dealing with enforcement, news providers, international content platforms and prohibited broadcasts, reads the filing. Baharav-Miara said this left an incomplete law that imposed or retained certain obligations without making clear how they would be enforced.

Another late amendment raised the annual revenue ceiling for a "small license" from NIS 80 million to NIS 2 billion. From January 1, 2027, that change would allow Keshet and Reshet to broadcast news without keeping their news operations in separate companies.

The separation is intended to shield editorial decisions from the commercial interests of the companies controlling Channels 12 and 13. The law does not require the broadcasters to dismantle their news companies, but removes the requirement to keep them without providing an equivalent safeguard, she argued.

She raised a similar concern about media ownership. The law immediately removes some restrictions on companies holding interests in both commercial channels and cable or satellite platforms, but the replacement approval system will not take effect for two years.

The attorney-general warned that companies could use that gap to complete deals that concentrate media ownership before the new safeguard exists. Those transactions could be difficult to undo later.

Those possible changes are the main reason Baharav-Miara wants the court to freeze the law now rather than wait for a final ruling. She argued that leaving the current rules in place would preserve the market. Allowing the law to proceed could prompt broadcasters, investors and distributors to change ownership, sign contracts and make long-term decisions under rules the court may later invalidate.

She said the risk is especially serious because the changes affect news and current-affairs broadcasting during an election period, when the independence and diversity of the media carry heightened public importance.

Karhi, who is represented separately because his position conflicts with the attorney-general's, has also rejected the court's authority to freeze the legislation. He accused the court and Baharav-Miara of protecting established media organizations.

The High Court must now decide whether to freeze the law in full, retain Grosskopf's narrower temporary order or allow some or all of the blocked provisions to take effect. That decision will govern the broadcasting market while the petitions are heard. It will not determine the petitions themselves or decide whether the law should ultimately be struck down.