The High Court of Justice pressed the government on Sunday over its failure to implement last year’s ruling requiring effective enforcement of military service obligations against ultra-Orthodox (haredi) draft dodgers in a hearing on motions to hold the state in contempt of court.
At the close of the live-broadcast hearing, the five-justice panel said it would issue its decision at a later date.
The case centers on the government’s failure to carry out the November 2025 ruling, authored by Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg, which held that the state must move without delay to formulate an effective enforcement policy against haredi draft evasion, including meaningful criminal enforcement and broader economic and civil measures.
That ruling followed the court’s landmark June 2024 judgment holding that, absent a valid exemption framework in law, the state had no authority to continue avoiding the enlistment of yeshiva students or funding institutions for students who were required to serve.
Sunday’s hearing focused on whether the government had complied with that later enforcement ruling. Petitioners argued that it had not, and sought contempt sanctions after the state failed to formulate the required policy within the 45-day deadline set by the court.
Throughout the hearing, the justices repeatedly questioned the gap between the court’s ruling and what had actually been done on the ground. Sohlberg said the enlistment data were “very difficult,” while Justice Yael Willner pointed to what she described as glaring disparities between enforcement against haredi and non-haredi draft dodgers, asking where the promised equality was.
Police enforcement of draft
The bench also zeroed in on police enforcement. Sohlberg asked whether the state could commit to having police carry out enforcement in haredi population centers rather than only in isolated or incidental cases. Attorney Netta Oren, representing the Attorney-General’s Office, said she could not give such an undertaking. She acknowledged that there were no proactive enforcement operations in haredi population centers and said that was troubling.
Her answer drew some of the hearing’s sharpest judicial remarks. Justice Dafna Barak-Erez said the picture emerging from the state’s account did not sound like a manpower problem so much as a policy choice. Justice Ofer Grosskopf, in a pointed exchange, questioned how meaningful enforcement could be if draft dodgers stopped by police were effectively being handed notices to report rather than being meaningfully detained.
Government Secretary Yossi Fuchs, who was unusually summoned to appear, defended the government’s position by arguing that it did not have an effective non-legislative solution that would produce large-scale haredi enlistment.
He maintained that the government was pursuing legislation and suggested that broader change would come through a comprehensive draft law rather than through immediate enforcement or administrative sanctions alone.
The justices appeared unconvinced.
Sohlberg said the court had already issued a ruling and that it had to be implemented, adding at one point that the court was running into “a brick wall” on the economic side. In another exchange, he said it seemed the ongoing back-and-forth was mainly serving to delay matters.
The Attorney-General’s Office, which aligned itself against the government, urged the court to issue more concrete orders directing ministers and professional officials to implement specific enforcement and sanctions measures.
Oren argued that a general ruling might have sufficed in a different setting, but not here, because the government had not actually implemented the judgment.
The hearing also exposed an unusually open clash between the government and the attorney-general’s representatives.
Fuchs accused the legal advisory system of failing to provide the government with a workable opinion supporting sanctions without legislation, while Oren suggested that materials attached by the government had been presented selectively. That dispute underscored the broader split between the government and the attorney-general over how, or whether, the court’s ruling should now be enforced.
At one point, Fuchs also invoked the army’s manpower strain, attributing it to Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, who warned that without draft legislation and an extension of mandatory service, the IDF would collapse. The military later issued a clarification saying Zamir had stressed the urgent need for a broad legislative response to manpower shortages but had not endorsed any specific draft bill.
Military representatives also told the court that haredi enlistment had risen but acknowledged that the increase still fell short of the army’s needs, particularly in combat tracks. Oren likewise said the current outcome did not match the military’s requirements and described the enlistment figures as bleak.
The hearing at times turned heated.
Attorney Eliad Shraga of the Movement for Quality Government interrupted proceedings more than once and accused state representatives of misleading the court. Ayelet Hashahar Seidof of the organization Mothers on the Front was allowed to address the bench directly and sharply criticized both the state and the court over what she called continued foot-dragging while reservists and soldiers bore the burden of the war.
The broader backdrop is the government’s continued push for new legislation meant to regulate the issue, even as the court has already made clear that, in the absence of a lawful exemption framework, existing draft obligations must be enforced.
Sunday’s hearing suggested the justices are deeply dissatisfied with the pace and substance of the government’s response. The remaining question is whether they will now translate that frustration into concrete operative orders, and if so, against whom.
Keshet Neev contributed to this report.