The Supreme Court published its verdict on the petitions against the recusal or incapacitation this evening (Wednesday), ruling that the implementation of the law must be delayed until the next government and cannot go into effect during the term of the current government.
The incapacitation law was passed to prevent a situation in which the attorney general or Supreme Court orders the prime minister to step down after the current Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of violating a conflict of interest agreement by becoming involved in the negotiations over the judicial reform issue last year.
Six justices voted to delay the implementation of the law, while five voted to allow the law to go into effect now.
The majority opinion called the law "deeply personal" and designed to serve the interests of the current prime minister.
Judges Sohlberg, Mintz, and Elron dissented from that opinion and stated that there was no reason to believe that the law was personal in nature.
The latest ruling comes two days after the Supreme Court made history by overturning a Basic Law for the first time, declaring that it has the authority to strike down even laws that have quasi-constitutional status by overturning the Reasonableness Standard law.
The Reasonableness Standard amendment was the only significant piece of legislation from the government's planned judicial reforms to be passed in 2023 and aimed to restrict the court's ability to strike down laws and government actions on the subjective view that they are 'unreasonable' rather than any established legal standard.
The decision to publish a ruling on the contentious judicial reform issue and declare its power to strike down Basic Laws while Israel remains at war with the Hamas terrorist organization was widely criticized on the right as unnecessarily divisive at a time of national emergency.