ACRI and Adalah Joint-Motion to the Supreme Court: Cancel Unconstitutional Government Decision Preceding the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law

On 16 May 2006, ACRI and Adalah submitted a joint motion to the Supreme Court requesting it to issue a ruling on their petitions submitted in 2002. The petitions challenged the Government Decision 1813, from May 2002 that preceded the enactment of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law, 2003. The government decision adopted the policy of the then-Minister of the Interior, Eli Ishai, which ordered the freezing of implementation of the general gradational naturalization process for Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens or residents. The government decision was then anchored in law more than a year later in July 2003. The motion was written jointly by ACRI's Chief Legal Counsel, Dan Yakir, ACRI Attorney, Sharon Abraham-Weiss, and Adalah's General Director, Hassan Jabareen and Adalah Attorney Orna Kohn.

Both Adalah and ACRI submitted petitions challenging the government decision four years ago, and the Supreme Court concluded its deliberations on the petitions in July 2003. Following the enactment of the law, both organizations submitted petitions directly challenging the law in the summer of 2003. The Supreme Court decided that it would postpone issuing it's ruling on the petitions challenging the government decision until after it issued a final verdict on the petitions challenging the law. On Sunday, 14 May 2006, the Court rejected the petitions by a narrow majority of 6-5.

The written motion to the Supreme Court emphasized that a clear majority of the expanded panel of Supreme Court Justices ruled that the law violates the constitutional rights to family life and equality, both enshrined in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. The violation of a constitutional right is only permissible with or according to specific authorization in the law. It is clear, therefore, that the government decision is legally void as it does not stand up to a legal examination in light of its blatant violation of the constitutional rights to family life and equality. Thus the petitioners call on the court to annul the government decision. The meaning of such a ruling, the organizations argue, is not simply declarative. By ruling the government decision void, Israeli citizens and residents attempting to apply during the period between the government decision and the enactment of the law, but prohibited, will now be able to enter the general gradational naturalization process.