The Supreme Court, in a rare seven-justice panel, ruled on Sunday that non-Jewish minors do not automatically receive Israeli citizenship just because their parent immigrated under the Law of Return. Instead, those children must go through the regular, slower naturalization process.
The six-one decision overturns a precedent set only months earlier and restores the Interior Ministry’s longstanding interpretation of the law.
At the heart of the case are two distinct legal routes to citizenship in Israel. One is the Law of Return, which gives Jews, children and grandchildren of Jews, and most converts an almost automatic right to immigrate (“make aliyah”) and receive citizenship. It is designed specifically to bring Jews to Israel and grant them status quickly.
The other is the Citizenship Law’s naturalization process for non-Jews who want to become Israeli citizens. This is a slower, more demanding route. It requires years of living in Israel, proof of the applicant's settlement in the country, basic Hebrew proficiency, and a full review by the interior minister. Children of someone who naturalizes this way are usually entitled to citizenship alongside the parent.
The key dispute in this case was whether children of a Law of Return citizen – who did not go through the long naturalization route – should still get the same automatic benefit. Last June, the Supreme Court said they should. Now, in this expanded rehearing, the court has said no.
Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, writing for the majority, said that the two tracks serve different purposes and should not be mixed.
The Law of Return, a generational reality
The Law of Return is meant to open the door for Jews; it is not meant to create a shortcut for non-Jewish children. Letting children of Law of Return immigrants jump automatically to citizenship, he wrote, would essentially expand the Law of Return beyond what the Knesset had ever intended for it.
Other justices in the majority said that each track – the Law of Return and naturalization – has its own rules for handling family members. Merging the two, they said, creates confusion and stretches the Law of Return far beyond its purpose.
Justice Yosef Elron added that the broader interpretation would risk encouraging people to misrepresent their personal status during the aliyah process, knowing that it would later grant their children automatic citizenship.
Justice Ruth Ronen dissented, arguing that the law’s purpose is to keep families unified under the same legal status and to protect children from becoming stateless.
If a parent is a citizen, she wrote, the child should not be left in limbo simply because the parent entered through the Law of Return rather than the naturalization track. She warned that the majority’s approach creates unnecessary and harmful status gaps between parents and their children.
The case concerned the Clement family, longtime residents of Dimona belonging to the African Hebrew Israelite community. The father, Eliezer Clement, converted to Judaism in the United States and immigrated under the Law of Return, but during the aliyah process, he falsely stated that he had no wife and children.
Over the years, the couple had eleven children. Four were eventually recognized as citizens; the remaining seven – some born abroad, some in unregistered home births – were left without citizenship and in some cases, without any nationality at all.
After paternity was legally established, Clement asked the Population and Immigration Authority to grant citizenship to these seven children. The state refused, saying that the Citizenship Law applies only when a parent naturalizes under the long, civilian track, not when a parent enters through the Law of Return.
A lower court accepted that view; in June 2024, the Supreme Court reversed it; and now the expanded panel has reversed it again, reinstating the state’s position.
The ruling means that non-Jewish children of Law of Return immigrants must now apply for citizenship through the regular naturalization system, rather than receiving it automatically. While these children can still become citizens, the process is lengthier and discretionary, requiring the Interior Ministry’s approval.
The majority of justices urged the state to use the humanitarian tools available under the law to avoid leaving children without legal status. But for now, the court made clear that any broader change to how these families are handled must come from the Knesset, not from the bench.