As a matter of principle the courts have the power to cancel a law enacted by the Knesset which clashes with the provisions of a basic law. Until the end of the term of the thirteenth Knesset, no law was in fact cancelled on this basis, and this after the Supreme Court cancelled several rulings by district courts on this issue. However, on September 25th, 1997 the High Court of Justice decided to cancel a clause in the Investment Advisors Law, since it clashed with the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation.

From time to time Knesset members and others, approach the High Court of Justice (HCJ) on issues related to the work procedures of the Knesset and its decisions, including decisions to lift the immunity of Knesset members. The inclination of the HCJ is to avoid getting involved in the internal affairs of the Knesset, but its basic point of departure is that it has the authority to pass legal judgement on parliamentary proceedings. There was, in the past, a case in which the HCJ ruled that a certain law had not been adopted in accordance with the majority required by the Basic Law: the Knesset, and cancelled it. On matters of procedure the HCJ is willing to intervene when it believes that essential values of the system of constitutional government are in danger of being violated. With regards to the quasi-judicial functions of the Knesset (especially the issue of the lifing of the immunity of Knesset members), the HCJ is willing to intervene on matters of procedure but not on the essence of the Knesset's decision.