Israel's Supreme Court rules that non-Jewish children of 'Law of Return' immigrants do not have automatic citizenship

An expanded panel of seven Supreme Court justices on Sunday ruled that a non-Jewish minor child of someone who received Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return is not automatically entitled to citizenship, but must pursue naturalization through another, slower process. 

The ruling was issued following a request for a further hearing submitted by the government on a previous ruling in the case of the Clement family from the Black Hebrew Israelite community in Dimona.

The fundamental legal question is whether the provision of Section 8(a) of the Citizenship Law, which states that "the naturalization of a person also confers citizenship on his minor child who on the day of naturalization was a resident of Israel," applies only to those who received citizenship through the specific "naturalization" method enshrined in Section 5 of the Citizenship Law, or does it refer to the acquisition of citizenship in any way, including by virtue of the Law of Return? 

The Law of Return is intended to grant Jews, their children, and their grandchildren the right to quickly immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship. 

In the case of the aforementioned Clement family, the father Eliezer, his wife, and several children, arrived in Israel around 2003, on tourist visas. However, the family stayed, settling in the city of Dimona, where they eventually had more children. 

In 2005, Eliezer underwent conversion in the United States, but lied about his marital status to the authorities. The next year he returned to Israel, receiving citizenship under the Law of Return. Later, he tried to gain citizenship for all his children, but the Population Authority only gave citizenship to his four youngest children, who were born after he received citizenship. The seven older children, who were born before his conversion, remained stateless. The government said that Section 8 of the Citizenship Law did not apply to the children of someone who received citizenship by Law of Return, but only to a person naturalized through Section 5 of the Citizenship Law. 

A District Court accepted the government’s position, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision in 2024, on an appeal filed by the family. In the majority opinion at that time, Justice Ruth Ronen said the term "naturalization" in Section 8 should be interpreted broadly, to include acquiring citizenship by any means. 

The majority opinion in that ruling held the objective purpose of Section 8 is to protect the integrity of the family, and prevent children from becoming stateless. However, the government filed a petition for another hearing, arguing this interpretation could lead to "breaking the boundaries" between the two different laws of citizenship, granting citizenship "through the back door," to those whom the Knesset did not intend to include. 

In the hearing on Sunday, five of the judges accepted the position of Justice Noam Solberg, who wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Ronen retained her position from the original ruling. Justice Solberg argued the word 'naturalization' in all its other appearances in the Citizenship Law clearly refers to the specific way of acquiring citizenship (naturalization), and not to acquiring citizenship by any means. 

This ruling means that non-Jewish children of people who converted to Judaism and received citizenship through the Law of Return, will have to pursue their own citizenship through a slower legal process, which is dependent on a decision by the Ministry of Interior.

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit concurred with the majority ruling, citing the distinct purposes of the Law of Return and the Citizenship Law, which delineate two separate systems. In his opinion, adopting an expansive interpretation of Section 8(a) could blur the distinction between the two systems. 

The other majority opinion justices agreed for similar reasons, with one justice adding that the father's deliberate lying regarding his marital status provides another basis for rejecting the previous interpretation. The majority justices urged the government to use available humanitarian tools to avoid leaving children without legal status. 

Judge Ronen, who retained her previous position, argued that both interpretations are consistent with the language of the law, including the Clement family's interpretation that 'naturalization' refers to any process of acquiring citizenship. She argued the decision should be made according to the purpose of the law. Ronen explained that the government's interpretation creates undesirable differences in civil status between parents and children, and could lead to incoherent results in citizenship law.