Then came the 2010s. Observers watched in bewilderment as elected leaders in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and eventually the United States began dismantling democratic guardrails not with bayonets, but with briefs. They amended constitutions. They packed courts. They rewrote electoral laws. They declared emergencies and cited legal texts. To the casual eye, the machinery of law was still humming. But the destination had changed.
Third, If autocratic legalism operates through legal forms, what legal remedy exists? Scheppele is sober. She has argued that international bodies like the EU cannot simply “enforce” democracy because the infringements are written into domestic constitutions. Instead, she advocates for what she calls militant democracy 2.0 —not banning parties, but requiring supermajorities for constitutional changes, protecting judicial independence with international treaty locks, and creating “right to democracy” actions before the European Court of Human Rights. Whether these cures can work against a determined government with control of parliament and the press remains, she admits, an open question. Part VI: Why Autocratic Legalism Matters Now As of the mid-2020s, autocratic legalism is no longer a niche concept. It has appeared in amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, in European Parliament resolutions, and in the strategic litigation of civil society groups from Warsaw to Brasília (where Jair Bolsonaro’s administration showed clear autocratic legalist patterns). Scheppele’s framework has been cited in testimony on Hungary before the U.S. Helsinki Commission and in the European Commission’s rule-of-law reports. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
But autocratic legalism is not a Central European pathology. In a widely circulated 2020 essay, The End of the Trump Era and the Future of Autocratic Legalism , Scheppele turned her lens to the United States. She argued that while Donald Trump was a clumsy autocrat—more impulse than strategy—his administration had nevertheless deployed autocratic legalist tactics: a travel ban justified by statutory authority, the separation of migrant families under a literal reading of a 1997 consent decree, the rewriting of postal service rules before an election, and the relentless pressure on the Department of Justice to act as a personal law firm. Then came the 2010s
The crucial difference, Scheppele noted, is institutional depth. Hungary and Poland had years to capture courts and civil service. Trump faced a more resilient federal judiciary and a norm-bound bureaucracy. But his legacy, she warned, was normalizing the idea that law is simply the will of the executive expressed in statutory language. That normalization is the antechamber to autocratic legalism. For readers encountering the search term “autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd” (likely a typographical shorthand for “UPenn” or “UPenn Law”), it is worth untangling the institutional threads. They packed courts
For students, activists, and scholars typing “autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd” into search bars late at night, the answer awaits in her formidable corpus: begin with Autocratic Legalism (2018), then read The Rule of Law and the Eurocrisis (2015), then the Hungary and Poland chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. But also read the dissents—the judges fired in Budapest, the professors investigated in Warsaw, the civil servants purged in Ankara. Their stories are the data points. Scheppele gave us the regression line.