Shabbat is a Day of Rest. But Not for Freedom of Protest

Illustrative. A protester with a megaphone at a demonstration in Tel Aviv on May 30, 2025. Photo: "Protest Documentation," Whatsapp

ACRI and the Protest Detainee Legal Support Front filed an urgent petition to the Supreme Court on June 16, 2026, against the Commander of the Jerusalem District Police. The petition sought an order directing the police to cease imposing unlawful restrictions on demonstrations, with an emphasis on refraining from confiscating sound equipment and restricting protests before the end of Shabbat. The petition was filed following an incident that took place during a demonstration that was held on Saturday, June 13, 2026 in Paris Square in Jerusalem, during which police confiscated megaphones, a loudspeaker, and drums from participants, claiming that making noise before the end of Shabbat was prohibited. The officers relied on an internal document, unsigned and not made public, which allegedly sets conditions for restricting protests in the area. 

The petition argued that there is no legal basis for a blanket prohibition on demonstrations before the end of Shabbat or on the use of sound amplification equipment during those hours, and that in confiscating the equipment, the police acted without authority. It noted that Israeli law and case law recognize the paramount importance of freedom of protest and permit the police to impose restrictions only under exceptional circumstances when there is a near certainty of significant harm that will be done to public order, and even then only to the minimum extent required. The petition further emphasized that the legal provisions relating to noise do not prohibit the use of sound amplification equipment on Shabbat, except during the designated rest hours, and that the Supreme Court has previously held that playing music and using sound amplification equipment are an integral part of freedom of protest. 

At a hearing held on June 24, 2026, the justices determined that in this case the balance struck by the police between the right to demonstrate and needs of neighborhood residents was appropriate. Following the Court’s recommendation, the petitioners withdrew the petition. In its judgment, the Court reiterated that the existing case law concerning freedom of demonstration remains in force. 

HCJ 48312-06-26 Noa Sattath v. Commander of the Jerusalem District, Israel Police 

Attorneys: Oded Feller, Nitsan Ilani 

The petition, June 16, 2026 (Heb) 

State’s response, June 17, 2026 (Heb) 

Petitioners’ reply, June 18, 2026 (Heb) 

Notice and motion to join additional petitioners, June 22, 2026 (Heb) 

The decision, June 24, 2026 (Heb)