Shas unleashed a blistering attack on the Supreme Court Wednesday, accusing it of selective enforcement and bias against the Haredi community after Justice Alex Stein froze nearly NIS 270 million in education funding that was lawfully approved by the Finance Committee.
The party's response framed the decision as evidence that the court has become "a branch of the opposition," abandoning neutral judicial authority in favor of partisan intervention. The attack came hours after Stein issued an interim freeze on transfers intended for Haredi schools, teacher salaries, student transportation and welfare programs.
"The decision to freeze lawfully approved budget transfers is serious damage to democracy and the Knesset's will," Shas stated in its formal response. "The transfers passed all required stages in the Finance Committee and were approved by competent bodies."
The Double Standard Argument
Shas anchored its defense on what it characterized as transparent judicial double standards. The party pointed to a precedent from the previous government that, according to Finance Committee Chair Hanoch Milwidsky, involved identical procedural structures yet escaped Supreme Court intervention.
"Double standards cry out to heaven," Shas declared. "As MK Yinon Azoulay revealed, the previous government transferred coalition funds in the same manner a week before elections, and the Supreme Court did not intervene."
The party's argument rested on establishing procedural equivalence. According to Shas, neither the law nor parliamentary procedure had changed between the two governments. What had changed, the statement suggested, was only the party in power and the identity of the recipients, in this case, the Haredi public and its educational institutions.
"The law did not change and the procedure did not change," Shas emphasized. "Only the identity of the government and the constituency receiving the funds changed."
The Discrimination Claim
Shas concluded its response with an explicit allegation of discrimination based on religious-communal identity: "When the children of the Haredi public are involved, suddenly the rules of the game change. This is shameful."
The statement framed the freeze as reflecting selective application of judicial authority, a pattern the party characterized as targeting the Haredi sector specifically. By anchoring the claim in procedural equivalence to a precedent that went unchallenged, Shas sought to convert the dispute from one about judicial authority into one about equal treatment under law.
Finance Committee Chair's Assault
Finance Committee Chair Hanoch Milwidsky escalated the institutional assault, attacking the court in stark terms that suggested growing confrontation between legislative and judicial branches.
"Yesterday Justice Sohlberg and today Justice Stein. Both entered the Supreme Court as 'conservatives.' The High Court of Justice is beyond repair. The High Court needs to be closed. The solution is a Constitutional Court," Milwidsky posted.
His statement appeared to reference Sohlberg's recent ruling as Central Elections Committee chairman, suggesting a pattern of what Milwidsky views as judicial overreach. The call to "close" the High Court represents the most extreme language yet from coalition figures regarding the judicial system.
The Procedural Dispute
Justice Stein's order to freeze the transfers cited "apparent procedural flaws" in the Finance Committee's convening during the election recess. The petitioners—Hiddush, a religious-freedom organization, and Democratic party MK Naama Lazimi—argued that the committee meeting violated rules governing parliamentary committee activity during pre-election periods when political activity should be restrained.
The Finance Committee had approved the transfers without announcing them in advance through normal channels, instead presenting them as a surprise agenda item during the recess period. Critics argued this circumvented oversight procedures designed to prevent governments from using budget authority for partisan advantage during campaigns.
Stein ordered respondents to file preliminary responses within 48 hours and indicated the full three-judge panel would hear the case expeditiously.
Election-Year Tensions
The dispute reflects broader institutional conflict intensifying as elections approach. Coalition parties, particularly the ultra-Orthodox contingent whose legislative power depends on Knesset discipline and resource distribution, have increasingly attacked the judiciary for what they characterize as usurpation of parliamentary authority.
The freeze directly impacts Haredi educational networks that are part of the coalition's political base. Loss of the funding could complicate coalition maintenance while strengthening ultra-Orthodox arguments that judicial intervention threatens their community's survival and interests.
Shas's precedent-based argument, focusing on how the prior government's similar moves escaped judicial intervention, attempts to transform the constitutional question from "Does the court have authority to freeze these transfers?" into "Is the court applying authority equally to all governments?"
