Very much so.
Last year, the supreme court struck down a 2017 law having to do with legalization of illegal housing built in previously Palestinian areas (New York Times source).
Here is a quote from that article:
In its 8-to-1 ruling, the high court declared that the 2017 law was
lopsidedly unfair, saying it sought to make legal “unlawful acts
perpetrated by one specific population” — Jewish settlers — “while
harming the rights of another,” the Palestinians.
It called the law an “arrangement which knowingly and unequally hurts
only the ownership rights” of the Palestinians...
Now, this law was so incredibly incendiary that it was hit by an injunction shortly after it was passed. As mentioned in the article, it would have been hard to imagine the judiciary not ruling against it, but it remains an example.
Another example would be the overturn of a ban which would have made it impossible for Arab parties to partake in Feb. 2009 parliamentary elections (New York Times source). It is noteworthy that this overruled the Central Election Committee's decision and that the vote in the court was unanimous.
The restrictions placed on jewish access to the temple mount can also be seen as pro-arab/anti-jew. I believe these restrictions are linked to the 1967 Protection of Holy Places Law. This law actually is an afirmative one, stating that:
The Holy Places shall be protected ... from anything likely to violate
the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to
the places sacred to them...
However, the Supreme Court ruled in The Temple Mount Faithful v. Tzahi Hanegbi that this right was not absolute and ruled in favor of access restrictions, even those which explicitly differentiate jewish from arab people entering the site (Jewish Center for Public Affairs)
This ruling has survived recent attempts at reversing it, such as one in 2019 to overrule an access restriction on Jews to the temple mount during Jerusalem Day JTA. The court ruled that it was the prerogative of the police to determine access.