Litigating Creatively
We advocate at all levels of the Israeli legal system to challenge and remedy violations of women’s rights perpetrated by the state in the name of religion.
CWJ sets precedents to correct women’s rights violations on a structural level, revolutionizing Israel's justice system for long-term, sustainable change.
CWJ’s tactic of suing get-refusers for damages (torts) in civil courts is a practical, effective method to alleviate marital captivity with an important social impact. Women leverage torts to win back their freedom from recalcitrant husbands, shifting the power imbalance. Torts use law to send a clear social message that get refusal is abuse.
CWJ advocates for women in Israel’s state-operated religious courts, ensuring that their rights are not violated when they seek to marry, divorce or assert their Jewish status.
CWJ pursues strategic lawsuits in Israel’s Supreme Court with the goal of setting precedents to ensure women’s rights whenever they are violated by the state. Unlike legislation, which can change with the political climate of each government, precedents set in the Supreme Court are permanent and affect all future cases. CWJ’s Supreme Court petitions challenge decisions of the rabbinate and rabbinic courts when they infringe on women’s civil liberties.
In 2019, a woman and her husband agreed to divorce. The couple had been married in 2006 in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel, and under the auspices of the Israeli rabbinate. The woman is a Jew from the Former Soviet Union. The husband is a Jew born in Israel. The couple agreed on everything and the family court authorized their agreement. They then jointly asked the rabbinic court to perform the get, which is a prerequisite to obtaining a civil divorce decree from the state. The rabbinic court refused, demanding that the woman undergo a re-investigation into her Jewish roots.
In 2022, CWJ petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of the woman to order the rabbinic court to perform the get without a re-investigation of her Jewish roots. We argued that it was a violation of natural law (due process) to keep changing the rules retroactively with regard to the evidence required to prove one’s Jewishness. And besides, we pointed out that there was no doubt that the rabbinic court would require the couple to undergo the get ceremony since they had married religiously.
Upon deliberation, the Attorney General and rabbinic court agreed that the rabbinic court could oversee the get without re-inquiring into the Jewish status of our client. Pleased that the case was resolved, the Court dismissed the petition with the promise that the rabbinic court would oversee the get.
Nonetheless, and despite its promise, the rabbinic court has refused to oversee the get ceremony. The rabbinic judges are insisting that Court issue a precedential decision giving rabbinic courts broad jurisdiction in all matters involving any citizen whose Jewishness is in question. The Attorney General is insisting that rabbinic courts have jurisdiction only in those cases in which there is no independent evidence that the Jewishness of the litigant is disputed.
The case is not resolved. CWJ’s client is still married 4 years after she requested the get, being held hostage as leverage by the rabbinic courts.
In a series of decisions made in 2016, 2018, and 2019, Israeli rabbinic courts called into question the Jewishness of a woman who was suing for divorce. In an act of anger and revenge, the woman’s husband informed the rabbinic court that his wife and family were not really Jewish. On the basis of this allegation alone, the rabbinic court stopped the divorce proceeding and insisted on investigating the Jewish Roots of the woman and her family. Claiming that the mother’s documents from the Former Soviet Union had been modified (“forged”), the court discredited the Jewish status of the woman, her mother, her sister, and all the grandchildren.,
In 2020, CWJ asked the Supreme Court to declare void the decisions of the rabbinic courts with regard to the Jewish status of the woman and her family; and to hold that rabbinic courts have no jurisdiction to: a) inquire into, and revoke, the Jewish status of a woman who was in the middle of a contested divorce; nor does it have the jurisdiction to b) revoke the Jewish status of three generations of the woman’s family who are not parties to the divorce. We also asked the court to void the 2010 Jewish Roots Regulations in its entirety for violating the rules of natural justice since the rules are vague, retroactive, and unenforceable.
In 2021, the Court invokes a technicality to remand the case to rabbinic courts.
In 2019, CWJ filed an amicus brief in support of a 2017 petition filed in the Supreme Court against a decision by the Council of Higher Education that permitted segregated classes in universities, arguing that gender segregation is a suspect category that harms women in several ways. It: a) entrenches stereotypes; b) erases women and silences them; c) objectifies women; d) subjects women to the power of men; and e) symbolizes the patriarchal order of things.
In 2019, the Court issued a decision which disallowed the practice of preventing women from teaching men, and allowed some, but limited, gender segregation on campuses in order to encourage education of the haredi population.
When immigrants were appearing before the rabbinic courts to ask for permission to marry, the rabbinic judges would require proof of their Jewish status. If the judges decided that they were not Jewish, they would “blacklist” both the applicant as well as the applicant’s family members as non-Jews who were not permitted to marry fellow Jews in Israel.
In 2017, CWJ joined an ITIM petition asking the Supreme Court to declare that rabbinic courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the Jewish status of relatives/third parties of persons who appear before the rabbinic court.
The Court directed the rabbinic courts to amend the Jewish Roots regulations so as to limit the circumstances under which the rabbinic court can make any determination regarding third-parties.
In 2020, the Court dismissed the petition after the rabbinic court drafted new regulations.
In 2016, the rabbinic court put a child on a mamzer backlist when his mother sued her ex-husband for the support of another child.
In 2017, CWJ petitioned the Court to declare that rabbinic courts have no jurisdiction to determine the mamzer status of the child at hand, or any minor. CWJ argued that minors, by definition, have not asked to marry or divorce (and may never do so). Rabbinic courts only have jurisdiction over matters of marriage and divorce.
The Court remanded the case to the rabbinic court to reevaluate its stigmatization of children.
In 2018, the Court dismissed the case after the rabbinic court declared that the child in this case was no longer on the blacklist (without resolving the issue of principle).
At an unspecified date, the Commissioner of the Wall issued regulations which provide Torah Scrolls only to men at the Western Wall, and which declare that no one may bring a private scroll into the Wall’s vicinity.
In 2015, CWJ petitioned the Supreme Court to declare that the Commissioner of the Wall had no jurisdiction to issue regulations that discriminate against women and infringe on their freedom of religion.
This petition is pending. It is being heard together with petitions filed by the Reform Movement’s petitions which, among other things, ask the Court to order the Commissioner to set aside an alternative prayer location at the Western Wall for egalitarian prayer.
In 2015, the rabbinic courts denied visitation to a mother because she was no longer religious. The social worker involved in the case insisted that the mother should have visitation rights, and that it was in the best interest of the children to see their mother.
In 2015, CWJ petitioned the Supreme Court to declare that rabbinic courts had no authority to make a determination regarding visitation that was not in the best interests of the child.
In 2015, the High Rabbinic Court reversed its decision, agreeing to allow the mother to visit with her children and rendering the petition to the Supreme Court moot.
In 2012, the rabbinic court placed a two-year-old on the mamzer blacklist when his mother asked the court for special permission to marry. The reason she needed to obtain “permission” to marry was because she was nursing and, according to Jewish and Israeli law, a nursing mother needs special permission to marry since she is “halachically” suspect that she would give physical preference to her new husband over the child of her ex. Her milk belongs to her ex-husband. When asking questions about the nursing habits of the mother, the rabbinic judges began to suspect that the new husband-to-be might have fathered the child while the mother was still married to her ex. This would make the child a mamzer.
In 2014, CWJ petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the mamzer decision, declaring that rabbinic courts have no jurisdiction to make any determination regarding the mamzer status of our client’s child, or of any minor, since minors, by definition, have not asked to marry or divorce. Rabbinic courts only have jurisdiction over matters of marriage and divorce.
The Court remanded the case to the rabbinic court to reevaluate whether or not the child was a mamzer.
In 2015, the Court dismissed the case after the rabbinic court declared our client’s child kosher, retracting the prior stigmatization (again thereby avoiding the issue in principle).
In 2010, the rabbinic court issued a restraining order against an Israeli woman who had been residing in South Africa since 1988, claiming that she had been refusing to agree to a religious divorce. The woman countered that she agreed to the Jewish divorce, but that her husband was using the Israeli courts to gain an advantage in the divorce proceedings taking place in South Africa. The restraining order stood for 4 years, preventing the woman from returning to South Africa. When it expired in 2014, the woman returned to South Africa. The rabbinic court reissued it.
In 2014, CWJ filed an amicus brief in support of the woman’s petition asking the Court to declare that the rabbinic court had no authority to issue the restraining order and to deny her the right of travel.
In 2014, the Court held that the rabbinic court must withdraw the restraining orders against her, thus limiting the long arm authority of the rabbinic court to restrain the travel of foreign residents, even if they are Israeli citizens.
On or about 2010, CWJ represented a woman in a particularly acerbic divorce proceeding. In order to take revenge on his wife for demanding a divorce, the husband claimed that his wife, a convert, still believed in Jesus and was not vigilant in obeying the commandments. (She was a nurse and worked on the Sabbath, among other things). The rabbinic court held a hearing to determine the level of our client’s religious beliefs and practices, after which it declared that she was not Jewish, but, also, at the same time, insisted that she undergo the Jewish get proceeding.
In 2013, CWJ petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of our client. We asked the Court to hold that rabbinic courts have no jurisdiction to repeal conversions when adjudicating contested divorces, arguing that vindictive husbands bandy false claims regarding their convert-wives in order to gain favor in the divorce proceeding. We also argued that there is no basis in Jewish law for ever repealing conversions.
In 2014, the Court refused to address and reopen the decision of the rabbinic court . It held that a rabbinic court, like any court, can repeal a prior decision if there is a finding of “fraud.” It refused to address the question of whether the lack of sufficient religious observance could be proof of fraud. We asked the Court to set down a hearing before an expanded tribunal, but the Court refused.
In November 2011, no woman was appointed to sit on the Committee to Appoint Rabbinic Judges.
In January 2012, CWJ filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the systemic discriminatory makeup of the Committee to Appoint Rabbinic Judges. At the time, 4 seats on the ten-person committee could only be filled by men since they were earmarked for the 2 Chief Rabbis and 2 rabbinic judges. Calling on the Court to protect women’s basic right to equality, CWJ petitioned the Court to order the Committee to guarantee 4 seats for women as well. 8 other NGOs joined our petition.,
In 2013, the Knesset amended the Rabbinic Judges Law of 1955 in accordance with CWJ’s recommendations in the case, guaranteeing 4 seats for women on the Committee and adding one more seat so as to enable decisions to be made by a majority.
On or about 2010, the rabbinic courts made a note on a client’s divorce document that she was not permitted to marry Mr. X or to remarry her husband after their divorce. According to the rabbinic judges, our client was a “noefet,” an adulteress who is not allowed to remarry her husband or to marry her suspected paramour. The rabbinic judges made that determination based on allegations made by her husband at the time of the get ceremony, and without our client being present or able to deny those allegations.
In 2012, CWJ petitioned the Court on behalf of our client to declare that the rabbinic court had violated the rules of natural justice (due process) by making a decision that was unsubstantiated by any evidence. We also argued that the rabbinic court had no jurisdiction to collect such evidence as part of a no-fault divorce proceeding.
The Court wanted to remand the case for a full hearing before the rabbinic court. Our client refused and we asked the Court to make a decision of the merits.
In 2015, the Court insisted that rabbinic courts issue regulations that limit the natural justice (due process) violations that accompanied the practice of blacklisting noafot—adulteresses in rabbinic courts. The rabbinic courts agreed, drafted the regulations, and the Court dismissed the case, stating that CWJ could return to the Court to address the case on its merits if the regulations were insufficiently protecting our clients.
In 2011, a young woman was denied access by to a state-funded ritual bath (mikveh) because she was not married. According to the Chief Rabbinate, it is inappropriate for single women to be sexually active. The bath attendant, a state employee, therefore decided that the woman was not entitled to use the mikveh.
In 2011, CWJ, representing the young woman, asked the Court to order the rabbinate to provide religious services to all women who want to use state-funded ritual baths, regardless of personal status or reason for using the bath. CWJ argued that bath attendants must not deny use of the mikveh to women because they were single; divorced; getting married in a ceremony outside the rabbinate; or wanted to immerse for spiritual reasons unrelated to marital purity.
In 2013, the Court, at CWJ’s suggestion, recommended that rabbinate adopt a policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” regarding all women who want to use the state ritual baths. The Court dismissed the case after the rabbinate agreed to accept these conditions.
As a result of this, all Israeli women are now entitled to use the state-funded ritual baths whenever they want, without state interference, and in accordance with their religious conscience. The case has also served as a precedent of the petition filed which demanded that women be allowed to use the ritual bath without the supervision of a bath attendant.
In 2007, the Ashdod district court repealed the conversion of two women when they asked the rabbis to oversee the get ceremony that is a condition for divorce in Israel. Instead of conducting the ceremonies, the rabbinic judges interrogated the women about their religious observance. Dissatisfied with their answers, the judges declared the women and their children to be no longer Jewish. They also held that all of R. Haim Druckman’s conversions were void.
In 2008, CWJ petitioned the Court on behalf of the two women and their families to declare that rabbinic courts have no jurisdiction to repeal conversions when overseeing uncontested divorces; as well as no authority to make any sweeping determination regarding the validity of all conversions overseen by R. Haim Druckman.
The Court remanded the cases to the rabbinic courts to reevaluate their decisions regarding the Jewish status of CWJ’s clients. At the same time, the Court suggested that rabbinic courts issue regulations that govern when a rabbinic court can reopen and repeal conversions.
In 2012, the Court dismissed the cases as “theoretical” after the rabbinic courts had declared our clients to be Jewish again, and after the rabbinate had agreed to draft regulations regarding the procedures for repealed conversions. When dismissing the cases, the Court held that rabbinic courts had no jurisdiction to make any determinative declaration regarding the validity of R. Druckman’s conversions.
In 2006, CWJ petitioned the Supreme Court to stop rabbinic courts from paying “extortion fees” to recalcitrant husbands in exchange for the get. In exchange for the get, rabbinic courts were both drawing on a special state slush fund to pay cash to recalcitrant husbands, as well as recommending that the National Insurance Institute waive the child support debts of those husbands.
In 2010, the Court suggested that the Rabbinate and NII set up committees and issue regulations to monitor such “extortion fees.” The Rabbinate and NII agreed to do so, and the Court dismissed the case.
The committee and regulations that were established have forced transparency and accountability, greatly limiting, if not eliminating, payment of “extortion fees” to recalcitrant husbands by the state.