On 24 November 2004, Adalah and Sawt al-'Amel (Laborer’s Voice) filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Israel against the National Insurance Institute (NII) and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor demanding the cancellation of Article 9A(b) of the Income Support Law (1980) and Article 10(c) of the Income Support Regulations (1982), which prevent unemployed owners and users of cars from receiving secured income support allowances.

The petition was filed by Attorney Gadeer Nicola in the name of Adalah and Sawt al-'Amel, and on behalf of a secured income support recipient whose request to use a car was denied. In April 2004, this individual wrote to the NII requesting permission to use a car so that he could transport his blind daughter for medical treatment. The NII refused the man's request. In its letter to the petitioner, the NII stated that, "Following the advice of the National Insurance Institute's doctor, it was decided to prohibit you from using the car, as your daughter's illness is not a justification to use the car, there being no evidence … indicating a need for urgent medical treatment."

The petitioners argued that the language of the law is vague, and does not differentiate between an individual who owns a car and an individual who uses a car. Nor does the law draw a distinction between different models of cars or their relative value. Furthermore, the law fails to give any weight to the personal circumstances of a secured income support recipient, such as his/her need for a car, the location of his/her home, or the level of public transport service in his/her area.

As the petition emphasizes, the NII rigorously enforces the law without discretion, and even employs private investigators to photograph and file reports on recipients arriving at unemployment offices in cars. In such circumstances where the NII believes that these individuals own or are using a car, the NII not only deprives them of further benefits, but also debits previous allowances provided to them. In cases where individuals are unable to pay the fines imposed by the NII, the NII has deducted debts from child allowances and from future income support payments which may be reactivated following a minimum of three months. Arab citizens of Israel constitute a significant portion of individuals entitled to these benefits, and many Arabs in Israel also live in remote villages with limited or no access to public transport services.

The petition provides six personal accounts of secured income support recipients whose benefits were cancelled as a result of car usage. One such account, which took place in August 2004, details the NII informing one of the recipients, a single mother with four children who lives in the Arab village of Beer al-Maksour in the north, that her benefits would be discontinued because she had driven her son's car. The NII fined her NIS 15,138, claiming that it had paid her this amount, and that by using the car she had forfeited her entitlement to it. The NII made this decision despite the woman's testimony that she had used her son's car to travel to the unemployment office in Natserat Illit in the absence of public transportation from her village.

The petition noted that National Labor Court Judge Elisheva Barak recently criticized the law, writing:

Regulation 10(c) stipulates in a general manner that anyone who owns a car, with some exceptions, such as the disabled and the infirm, are not entitled to income support allowances. This article does not give any weight to the value of the car, nor to the circumstances of the person. The article does not consider whether or not the person in question pays for the costs of the car, nor does it leave any scope for the National Insurance Institute's arbitration, and it is therefore overly broad and unreasonable. Furthermore, it fails to take into account the fact that there is no logic today in depriving people of income support for owning or using a car. This article contradicts the essence of the Income Support Law, which is to guarantee an income and a life in dignity for anyone who is unable to work.

The petitioners also argued that the law violates the constitutional rights of citizens, namely the right to dignity, which includes the right to a minimum standard of living, and the right to property.

H.C. 10662/04, Salah Hassan, et. al. v. The National Insurance Institute, et. al. (case pending)