The High Court of Justice will hear two separate cases next week challenging government efforts to transfer funds to haredi (ultra-Orthodox) educational institutions, after interim court orders blocked the moves over legal and procedural concerns.
In a decision issued on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Yael Willner ordered that hearings in both cases be held by January 8 and instructed the parties to submit preliminary responses up to 24 hours beforehand.
Though stemming from separate decisions by the Education Ministry and the Knesset Finance Committee, the two cases have converged at the High Court amid mounting disputes over the legality of funding transfers to haredi institutions and the government’s authority to advance them despite legal objections.
One case concerns Education Minister Yoav Kisch’s insistence on transferring NIS 40 million in funding under the Geffen program to the Shas-affiliated Maayan HaChinuch HaTorani - Bnei Yosef school network.
The move was challenged in a petition filed by the Hiddush organization for Freedom of Religion and Equality after the Attorney-General’s Office and the Education Ministry’s legal advisers determined that the network does not meet statutory requirements for receiving the funds.
The High Court subsequently issued a temporary injunction barring the transfer.
According to the petition, the Bnei Yosef network does not comply with core curriculum requirements and lacks the oversight conditions required under the law, rendering the transfer unlawful.
Kisch nevertheless announced that he intended to proceed with the allocation, in defiance of the legal opinion.
The second case concerns a series of budget transfers to ultra-Orthodox educational institutions that were approved through the Knesset Finance Committee and later frozen by the High Court pending judicial review.
The freeze followed petitions filed by opposition leader Yair Lapid and other lawmakers, who argued that the transfers – amounting to more than NIS 1 billion – were advanced without a sufficient legal basis and in violation of existing court rulings governing state funding for haredi education.
The High Court issued an interim order blocking the transfers and ordered the state to explain why the funds should be released before a final ruling is issued, including whether an interim injunction would prevent the recovery of the money should the transfers later be found unlawful.
Haredi parties accuse High Court of 'running wild'
The court’s interim orders triggered a fierce backlash from haredi parties and senior coalition figures.
United Torah Judaism chairman MK Moshe Gafni accused the High Court of “declaring war on the ultra-Orthodox public,” claiming that budgets approved according to law and procedure were struck down within hours and alleging that judges were acting based on ideology rather than law.
Shas issued a statement accusing the court of “running wild” and of inflicting unprecedented harm on the ultra-Orthodox public, while United Torah Judaism chairman and Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf said the decision would deepen social divisions and further erode public trust in the judiciary.
Shas leader Arye Deri spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently in the United States, and urged immediate government action. According to Deri’s office, Netanyahu pledged to convene a ministerial team upon his return to address the issue.
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi called on the government to ignore what he described as “delusional” court orders, while Justice Minister Yariv Levin urged coalition lawmakers to advance stalled judicial reform legislation in response to the rulings.
At the same time, a senior United Torah Judaism source told Israel Hayom that Levin’s judicial overhaul had contributed to delays and breaches of coalition agreements concerning the regulation of yeshiva students and education funding.
He said that the justice minister was “part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
The hearings scheduled for next week will place both disputes squarely before the High Court, as tensions between the government and the judiciary continue to escalate over the limits of lawful budgetary authority and the role of legal oversight in funding decisions.