Ressler v. Minister of Defense
Israel Supreme Court
HCJ 910/86, 42(2) PD 441 (1988)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
Military service in Israel was universal and obligatory. However, under the Law of Military Service, the Israeli minister of defense issued a deferral order for ultraorthodox yeshiva students, which allowed the yeshiva students to avoid military service altogether by continually deferring service. The deferral order had been challenged in court on prior occasions, but the court dismissed the petitions due to lack of standing because the petitioners had failed to show that they had suffered an actual injury due to the deferral order. Yehuda Ressler (plaintiff), a member of the military, along with other members of the military (plaintiffs), filed a petition challenging the deferment order. In this case, Ressler and the other petitioners submitted an affidavit of the former head of the human-resources-planning branch of the military, which stated that Ressler and the other petitioners had to serve longer turns in the military because of the deferment order, and that if the yeshiva students were obligated to serve in the military like everyone else, Ressler and the petitioners would have shorter turns of military duty. Ressler and the other petitioners alleged that this was an actual injury to their interests that allowed standing to challenge the deferment order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barak, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.