Israel’s Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it would hear petitions by the Opposition in September to strike down the first part of the government’s contentious plan to weaken the country’s judiciary, which passed earlier this week.

Defying widespread protests and warnings from key allies such as the US, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition enacted the law on Monday, aimed at curbing the Supreme Court’s longstanding practice of overruling some policies and appointments made by the national government on grounds they are “unreasonable”.

The case poses thorny questions for Israel’s top court, which will now consider a law aimed at limiting its own authority.

Yair Lapid, the leader of the country’s political Opposition, and other Opposition groups immediately filed petitions against the law, which they said removed a key check on executive power.

“We will petition the High Court against this legislation, against the unilateral cancellation of the democratic character of the State of Israel,” Lapid said on Monday in the wake of the vote.

The court did not immediately issue an injunction barring the change from coming into effect until the justices reached a decision on the petitions, as some opponents had hoped. The hearing’s date will be set in the coming days, a Supreme Court spokesman said.

The proposed judicial overhaul has bitterly divided the country and provoked months of mass demonstrations. Netanyahu and his allies say the overhaul is necessary to rein in activist judges who have seized too much power and tied the hands of elected leaders.

Critics say the laws would undermine the independence of Israel’s judiciary.

If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to strike down the law, it would be an unprecedented step that would significantly ramp up Israel’s political turmoil. The coalition would then have to decide whether or not to obey the justices’ decision, potentially opening the door to a crisis between the different branches of government.

Unlike many western democracies, Israel does not have a formal Constitution. Instead, it has a series of quasi-constitutional Basic Laws that enshrine fundamental protections for basic rights and outline the powers of different branches of government.