The vast majority of complaints filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit were dismissed by the judicial complaints commissioner on Wednesday, with only one complaint justified following an extensive review of allegations raised against him.
The decision, issued by Judicial Complaints Commissioner Asher Kula, followed the submission of dozens of complaints against Amit, many of which were concentrated in a single filing submitted by the Lavi organization in July. Several of the complaints were lodged shortly before the Judicial Selection Committee convened to consider Amit’s candidacy for the presidency of the Supreme Court.
After what the commissioner described as an unprecedented and comprehensive examination – including testimony from numerous witnesses, written submissions, and a personal meeting with Amit – Kula concluded that only one complaint was substantiated, while all others were rejected.
The sole complaint that was upheld concerned Amit’s failure to provide disclosure in a High Court case involving the government’s attempt to dismantle the directors’ pool for appointments to government companies, in which Amit’s brother was included.
While the commissioner found no improper intent and did not recommend any further action, he ruled that disclosure should have been made to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Amit said he respects the commissioner’s determination and will take the finding into account.
All remaining complaints – including allegations of conflicts of interest related to real estate holdings, planning and construction issues, alleged involvement in criminal proceedings, claims connected to the use of a former family name, and accusations arising from media investigations – were dismissed.
In several instances, the commissioner stated that complaints were unfounded, lacked a factual basis, or should not have been submitted at all. He also rejected allegations that Amit had committed planning or construction offenses, explicitly stating that the chief justice was not a “building offender” and warning that such characterizations had caused him and his family unjustified harm.
The commissioner further noted that some complaints had already been examined in the past, while others were raised without adequate preliminary verification. In addition to his rulings on the individual complaints, Kula issued broader recommendations aimed at strengthening public confidence in the judiciary, including consideration of expanding judges’ disclosure obligations in certain circumstances.
Yariv Levin calls for Amit's resignation from Supreme Court
Following publication of the decision, Justice Minister Yariv Levin said that a Supreme Court justice should not remain in office after a complaint of conflict of interest has been upheld and called on Amit to resign immediately.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also criticized Amit, accusing him of damaging what he described as the remaining public trust in the Supreme Court.
Smotrich drew widespread attention and criticism this week for unusually inflammatory remarks directed at Amit. At a parliamentary faction meeting on Monday, Smotrich called Amit a “violent, predatory megalomaniac” and said there would be no choice but to “trample” him, language that judicial officials and political figures described as crossing a serious line.
Amit responded that the comments had “crossed a redline” but would not deter him from his duties, while the judiciary’s spokesperson said Smotrich’s attack did not constitute legitimate public discourse. Smotrich later doubled down on his remarks in an interview with Army Radio, rejecting calls to retract them and framing his criticism as a response to what he characterized as judicial overreach.
In a statement issued by the judiciary, Amit emphasized that the commissioner’s review was exhaustive and unprecedented in scope and that the findings rejected the overwhelming majority of allegations raised against him.
The statement said the commissioner did not recommend any operative steps against Amit, effectively concluding the examination of the complaints.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of an ongoing confrontation between the government and the judiciary over judicial authority, oversight mechanisms, and public trust in the court system.