Autocratic legalism sits in the treacherous space between them. It is, Scheppele writes, the use of liberal legal forms to achieve autocratic ends . The autocrat does not burn the constitution; he reinterprets it. He does not abolish parliament; he shrinks its quorum. He does not jail all opposition journalists; he passes a defamation law with such breathtakingly vague standards that only the government’s critics are charged.
Second, Critics from the Global South note that many post-colonial nations have always used legal forms to maintain oligarchic control—South Africa under apartheid, for example. Is autocratic legalism new, or simply a rebranding of “managed democracy”? Scheppele concedes the point in recent work, acknowledging that the Hungarian model borrows from earlier “electoral authoritarian” regimes in Russia and Singapore. However, she insists the term retains analytic value because it captures the performative hypocrisy of claiming liberal legality while destroying it—a hypocrisy that previous authoritarian legal forms did not bother to maintain. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
Scheppele’s diagnosis forced a painful realization: The EU’s famous “Copenhagen criteria” (requiring new members to have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy and rule of law) had no enforcement mechanism once a member backslid legally. The union had weapons against naked coups, but none against constitutions rewritten by majority vote. If Hungary was the first mover, Poland’s Law and Justice party (PiS) perfected the model after 2015. Scheppele, writing with her frequent collaborator Wojciech Sadurski, tracked how PiS replicated and even accelerated Orbán’s playbook: packing the Constitutional Tribunal, subordinating the ordinary judiciary through a new disciplinary chamber, and weaponizing lustration laws against judges who resisted. Autocratic legalism sits in the treacherous space between
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. He does not abolish parliament; he shrinks its quorum
Thus, searching “autocratic legalism UPenn” will pull up not only Scheppele’s work but also related scholarship by Penn’s own David C. Williams, Eric Feldman, and the late Howard Lesnick—all of whom debated and extended her framework. The keyword “upd” is almost certainly a search engine fragment from “upenn dot edu” or a misspelling of “UPenn.” No theory goes unchallenged. Critics of autocratic legalism raise three objections.
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.
In the end, autocratic legalism teaches a lesson that democracies forget at their peril: