September 2026 status report on Section 11א of the Temporary Order Law, the 31 Jul interim order, and what DCL permit holders should do. A practical guide.
If you are a resident of the Area (West Bank/Gaza) holding a stay permit in Israel (an DCL permit (issued by the Coordination and Liaison Administration)) granted through the family-unification process, or the Israeli spouse of someone holding such a permit, you may have heard about Section 11א of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 5782-2022, and about the intention to begin applying it as of 1 August 2026. The reports on this subject have been partial and at times alarming, and the legal reality is more complex than they suggest.
The legal proceedings concerning the section have not yet concluded. A petition to the High Court of Justice, filed in August 2025 and seeking to strike down Section 11א, is still pending; and on 31 July 2026 — one day before the effective date the State had announced — the Court issued a temporary (ex parte) order narrowing the section's application. This article is a status report as of September 2026: what is known, what has been frozen, what remains in force, and what is expected next. The legal picture may change, and this article will be updated accordingly.
The default rule set out in Section 3 of the Temporary Order Law is that the Minister of Interior will not grant a resident of the Area (West Bank/Gaza) citizenship, a residency license, or a stay permit in Israel. The rule carries exceptions — permits for spouses and children under Sections 4–6, special humanitarian grounds under Section 7, and Section 9. The Supreme Court described this structure in Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 65008-02-26 (19 Mar 2026), adding that the burden of proving special humanitarian grounds rests on the applicant, and that the mere fact that a family member is lawfully present in Israel does not, on its own, constitute such grounds.
The review under Section 7 is conducted by a professional committee that advises the Minister of Interior, whose work is regulated by Procedure 1.14.0001 (Procedure Regulating the Work of the Interministerial Advisory Committee for Determining and Granting Status in Israel to Residents of the Area on Special Humanitarian Grounds), published on 31 December 2024. Clause 2.ט of the Procedure provides that when the circumstances under which the permit was granted have materially changed, the file is returned to the committee for further review and a fresh decision by the Minister of Interior. At the same time, Section 11 of the Law anchors the rule that no permit or license will be granted where there is a security bar — whether because of information concerning the applicant personally, or because of an indirect risk arising from the applicant's close family members.
The petition against Section 11א was filed in August 2025, together with a request for an interim order providing that the section would not be applied pending a ruling on the petition, in order to prevent immediate and irreversible harm to human rights. For nearly a year the preliminary responses were not filed, among other things because of repeated requests for extensions and on the understanding that the Population and Immigration Authority was not prepared to implement the section, so there was no urgency.
On 23 July 2026, the State announced for the first time that it was preparing to implement Section 11א, and that it intended to apply it partially within a few days, starting 1 August 2026. The decision indicates that, at this stage, preparations are for implementing only Sections 11א(a) and 11א(d), so the Court did not need to address Section 11א(b), which concerns decisions within the authority of the Area Commander. To be clear: the decision does not quote the full text of Section 11א, so we do not reproduce it here. What does emerge from it is that the section may apply to a family member of a resident of the Area involved in terrorism, that it may also apply to a resident of the Area who has been convicted of an act of terrorism or is himself a terrorist operative, and that subsection (d) includes the possibility of exercising discretion in exceptional cases.
On 31 July 2026, one day before the date the respondents had announced, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez issued a temporary (ex parte) order 'in a limited format' (HCJ 41284-08-25). Its three components, in substance: Section 11א(a) will not be applied to a family member (only), without derogating from the rule set out in Section 11 of the Law that no permit or license will be granted where there is a security bar; for the avoidance of doubt, the section may still be applied to a resident of the Area who has been convicted of an act of terrorism or is himself a terrorist operative; and no temporary order was issued regarding Section 11א(d), given that it includes the possibility of exercising discretion in exceptional cases.
Two important clarifications. First, this is a temporary order issued before the preliminary responses to the petition were filed; the Court expressly noted that it does not reflect a position on the petition itself, and that the decision may be reconsidered once the responses are filed or if a change in implementation plans is reported. Second, the order does not block the ordinary security-bar track: refusal, non-renewal, or revocation under Section 11 of the Law and under the discretion granted by the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, continue to operate as before.
At the respondents' request, it was set that the preliminary responses to the petition are to be filed by 1 November 2026. Until that date, as a rule, the temporary order remains in force in the format described above. After that, the Court will need to address the merits of the petition, and the question of the order may also be reconsidered — in either direction.
The practical conclusion: the temporary order should not be relied on as a permanent arrangement. Anyone who has received a notice concerning their permit must act by the deadlines it sets, rather than wait for the outcome of the petition. This article reflects the legal situation as of September 2026 and will be updated if it changes.
Case law requires, except in exceptional cases of extraordinary urgency, that a hearing be held before a family-unification application is refused on security grounds, so as to allow the applicant to address the information — within the limits of what can be disclosed from it — and to try to persuade the authority to grant the application despite that information. This is how the law was summarized in Appeal (Jerusalem) 3000-24 (6 Mar 2025). In practice, you will usually receive a 'paraphrase': a short, unclassified summary of the confidential material. This is the starting point for your response, and it should be addressed point by point rather than in general terms.
What to do immediately: keep every document and the date it was delivered, since deadlines run from the date the decision was received; request the paraphrase and the reasons for the decision in writing if they were not provided; prepare for the hearing and attach supporting evidence (center-of-life documents, employer confirmations and payslips, children's documents, medical records); and make sure not to let the permit expire — under clause ג.19 of Procedure 5.2.0008, a request to extend validity will not be accepted once 180 days have passed from the expiry date, and the application will be closed automatically.
Procedure 5.2.0008 (Procedure for Handling the Grant of Status to a Foreign Spouse Married to an Israeli Citizen, edition 16, updated 20 Jul 2026) provides in clause ג.26 that revocation of a license granted under it requires a hearing, and clause ג.21 requires that the refusal decision state the available route of challenge and that the holder of a valid license be notified that it is being revoked. Obtaining the positions of the security and police authorities is regulated by Procedure 5.2.0015 (Procedure on Comments by Relevant Authorities on Family-Unification Applications).
A decision of a Population and Immigration Authority bureau on a family-unification application may, as a rule, be challenged by a written internal appeal within 21 days of receiving the decision, under clause ג.22 of Procedure 5.2.0008 and in accordance with Procedure 1.6.0001; after that, the way is open to an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal for immigration matters, and from its judgment — an appeal to the District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs within 45 days.
There is a major exception in the Temporary Order Law track: decisions made through the professional committee channel under Section 7 of the Law are not listed in the schedule under section 13כג of the Entry into Israel Law, and are therefore not within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal. This was held in Appeal (Jerusalem) 3474-25 (5 Nov 2025), where an appeal was struck out for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Tribunal made clear that the way is open to file an administrative petition with the District Court. Similarly, it was held in HCJ 51598-01-25 (2 Mar 2025) that claims challenging the Minister of Interior's discretion in granting licenses under Section 9 of the Law fall within the jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs.
The practical implication: decisions under Sections 7–9 of the Temporary Order Law should be challenged by way of an administrative petition, not an appeal. The question of which forum will hear decisions issued under Section 11א has not yet been resolved, so you should follow the route of challenge stated on the decision itself, and in cases of doubt consider filing in parallel so as not to lose deadlines. An administrative petition must be filed without delay and no later than 45 days from the date the decision was published, delivered, or became known — as emphasized in Adm. Appeal (Supreme Court) 65008-02-26 (19 Mar 2026).
In Appeal (Jerusalem) 3000-24 (6 Mar 2025), the Tribunal considered a refusal to extend an DCL permit (issued by the Coordination and Liaison Administration) that had been held continuously since 2008, based on a security bar arising from the appellant's employment at a Palestinian Authority ministry. The appeal was dismissed after review of the confidential material, but the Tribunal noted that having held status for many years affects the strength of administrative evidence required to revoke a license. It also emerged that the appellant had been offered the option of ending her employment with the Palestinian Authority and being reassessed, and that she declined — which counted against her. The lesson: long-standing lawful status is an argumentative asset, and where the bar stems from a circumstance that can be changed, it is better to offer to change it already at the hearing stage.
In Appeal (Jerusalem) 1862-26 (23 Jul 2026), a referral for the issuance of an DCL permit (issued by the Coordination and Liaison Administration) was cancelled after a security bar arose. The Authority sent a letter stating that it was considering a refusal, summoned the appellants to a hearing, and allowed a written response; the Tribunal found that a material change of circumstances had occurred and struck out the appeal, noting that the appellants must first exhaust their proceedings before the Authority. The lesson: exhaust the hearing process first, and pursue legal proceedings afterward.
In Appeal (Jerusalem) 3474-25 (5 Nov 2025), a request to continue status regularization on humanitarian grounds was refused because of a security bar. The Authority agreed to return the file to the professional committee for renewed review, and the appeal was struck out for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with a referral to an administrative petition. The lesson: a material change of circumstances can send a file back to the committee, and choosing the correct forum saves precious months.
Our office assists stay-permit holders who are residents of the Area and their Israeli spouses at the stages when a decision can still be changed: building the response to a hearing around the paraphrase rather than around general arguments, gathering the evidentiary foundation of center of life, seniority, and the family unit, making an orderly approach to the professional committee where appropriate, and choosing the correct forum and deadline for challenge. We follow developments in the pending petition concerning Section 11א and update accordingly. Nothing herein constitutes individual legal advice, and every case is examined on its own circumstances.
No. The section remains in force, and the petition to strike it down has not yet been decided. On 31 July 2026, a temporary (ex parte) order was issued in a limited format, under which Section 11א(a) will not be applied to a family member only; this is a temporary arrangement that the Court may reconsider.
No. The order was expressly issued without derogating from the rule in Section 11 of the Law, under which no permit or license will be granted where there is a security bar. In other words, the track for refusal or revocation on security grounds continues to operate as usual, as does the discretion under the Entry into Israel Law.
The decision clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that Section 11א(a) may still be applied to a resident of the Area who has been convicted of an act of terrorism or is himself a terrorist operative. The narrowing effect of the temporary order concerns a family member only.
This is the date set for the respondents to file their preliminary responses to the petition. After they are filed, the Court will need to address the merits of the petition, and the question of the order may also be reconsidered. Until then, it should not be assumed that the matter has been decided.
First, you should exhaust the hearing process before the Authority and file a reasoned response supported by documents. A decision of the bureau may generally be challenged by an internal appeal within 21 days under Procedure 1.6.0001, followed by an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal. By contrast, decisions made through the professional committee channel under Section 7 of the Temporary Order Law are not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and the route for them is an administrative petition within 45 days.