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.
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. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
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. Then came the 2010s
This article explores the architecture of Scheppele’s theory, its empirical grounding in Central Europe, its evolution through the Trump and Orbán eras, and its urgent implications for liberal democracies today. While the keyword often attaches “UPenn” to her name due to her influential years at Penn’s Law School and the Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy, Scheppele’s institutional home is now Princeton. But her intellectual DNA remains deeply woven into the legal realism of the Philadelphia-New York corridor. In her landmark 2018 article, Autocratic Legalism (University of Chicago Law Review), Scheppele draws a sharp line between two familiar forms of governance. The first is authoritarian legality —the brute-force law of dictatorships, where courts are rubber stamps and legal forms are mere window dressing for raw power. The second is liberal legality —the ideal of the rule of law, where general, public, prospective, and consistent norms bind both citizen and sovereign. They packed courts
