Joint High Court petition: Revoke the new amendment to the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law entrenching collective punishment

At the end of the last Knesset session, the Knesset quickly passed an amendment to the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Section 11a), in spite of the fact that it is counter to the legal opinions of the Knesset itself, as well as the government. The Amendment approves the sweeping revocation of family unification status of Palestinians whose family members, broadly defined, are involved in security-related incidents. The Amendment stipulates that revocation of status shall apply even if the affected individuals have no connection to the family member, or the supposed offender is unaware that they reside in Israel or how his actions impact their life. The Amendment further broadly states that a Palestinian who stayed in Israel unlawfully, for any length of time and for any reason, would not be able to acquire legal status in Israel for any reason whatsoever, for ten years. This amendment affects spouses, parents, children, Palestinian asylum seekers, victims of violence and crime, and other humanitarian cases.

ACRI, HaMoked and PHR-Israel petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) on August 17, 2025, to revoke the Amendment and issue an interim order freezing its implementation until judgment is issued (this, after the HCJ rejected the petitioners’ motion for an interim order in the framework of the ongoing petition against the entirety of the Law, against which the Court has issued an order nisi). The petitioning organizations argued that the Amendment would apply to people against whom there is no concrete claim that they are involved in any security issues. These people, who did not participate in, know about, or support any wrongdoing will nonetheless be punished through no fault of their own by not receiving legal status in Israel, or being expelled from the country, and any spouses and children who are Israeli citizens and residents will also be punished. The organizations emphasized the fundamental legal principle that a person bears responsibility for their own actions, and is not to be punished for deeds committed by others. The petition argues that this amendment constitutes collective punishment, that the reasoning behind the amendment is racism and populism, and that the amendment is unconstitutional. Moreover, it is destined to tear families apart and harm to the rights of people who have done nothing wrong.

The Court gave the State leave to respond to the petition and the request for an interim order until September 17, 2025.