Autocratic Legalism Kim Lane Scheppele Upd Extra Quality -

In her seminal 2018 paper published in the University of Chicago Law Review , Scheppele outlines how "legalistic autocrats" weaponize the very tools of liberal democracy to kill it. The strategy relies on two main pillars:

Scheppele's framework has not been without its critics. Some scholars argue that it gives too much weight to formal legality at the expense of substantive constitutional values. A 2024 Verfassungsblog article argued that the concept of autocratic legalism risks setting formal and substantive requirements of constitutionalism against each other, creating the "wrong impression that autocrats respect the formal requirements of constitutionalism when, in actuality, they do not". The author pointed to Hungary as an example: many of Orbán's laws were enacted in violation of the procedural requirements of the rule of law, suggesting that even the façade of legality may be absent.

A decade ago, Princeton sociologist Kim Lane Scheppele coined a term that reshaped how political scientists diagnose democratic backsliding: As we move through 2026, her framework has proven not only prescient but essential for understanding how illiberal regimes—and increasingly, hybrid democracies—use the very tools of liberal governance to dismantle it from within.

A dramatic illustration of how autocratic legalism continues to evolve within the EU came in January 2026. Hungary granted political asylum to Zbigniew Ziobro, Poland's former Minister of Justice under the PiS government, who was facing criminal investigations in Poland for alleged abuses committed during his tenure. A Verfassungsblog analysis called this "a textbook example of autocratic legalism"—legality deployed not to protect rights, but to shield power and dismantle mutual trust from within. By modifying its surrender rules to shield recognized refugees from extradition, Hungary set aside Treaty-level constraints designed to prevent precisely such uses of asylum. The case reveals how autocratic legalist tactics are becoming increasingly sophisticated, using legal procedures not merely to consolidate power at home but to create transnational safe havens for allied illiberal actors. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd

They use legal tools, including parliamentary majorities and judicial appointments, to dismantle checks and balances.

In Brazil, scholars have extended Scheppele's framework to analyze the Bolsonaro era. Marina Barreto, in a 2023 article, proposed the concept of "autocratic infra-legalism" to describe how the Bolsonaro administration used administrative legal tools rather than formal constitutional changes to advance its illiberal agenda, offering a counter-argument to Scheppele's original thesis. This academic debate illustrates how Scheppele's framework continues to generate new theoretical developments as scholars apply it to different national contexts.

Scheppele argues that autocratic legalism operates on three distinct but interconnected levels. Understanding these helps identify the "playbook" of modern authoritarians. In her seminal 2018 paper published in the

The rise of autocratic legalism poses significant threats to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Some of the dangers include:

Perhaps Scheppele's most hopeful contribution in recent years is her emphasis on transnational law as a tool for democratic restoration. In her 2024 Annual Review article and in various lectures, she has highlighted the primary role that transnational courts play in transforming individual rights into constitutional structures that safeguard democratic institutions. From judicial independence to presidential term limits, transnational courts are reshaping the legal landscape in the fight against autocratic legalism.

Would you like a summary of the core argument from the 2018 UChicago Law Review paper? A 2024 Verfassungsblog article argued that the concept

Scheppele's work highlights that the defense of democracy must go beyond simply holding elections. It requires:

: Deliberately shifting statutory and judicial interpretations to isolate and penalize political rivals.

The final and most insidious stage involves locking in these anti-democratic changes through constitutional amendments, supermajority requirements, or other legal mechanisms that make reversal extraordinarily difficult. As Scheppele has warned in her 2025 John M. Kelly Memorial Lecture at University College Dublin, "none of the countries that has experienced a serious autocratic episode has been able to fully recover, precisely because the aspirational autocrats have engaged in legal entrenchment". Even when a country like Poland manages to elect a reformist government, as it did in 2023, the legal architecture of autocracy remains, creating a trap from which full democratic restoration is nearly impossible.

As of early 2026, the framework remains strikingly relevant. A notable Verfassungsblog piece from January 2026 examines Hungary granting political asylum to Zbigniew Ziobro, Poland's former Justice Minister, who faces criminal investigations in his home country. This move, scholars argue, represents an escalation of autocratic legalism: using asylum law to shield allied autocrats from justice, exploiting mutual trust principles within the EU for political protection.

Scheppele builds upon the initial work of political scientist Javier Corrales, expanding the framework to encompass three distinct abuses of legal power: