First, Some scholars argue that Scheppele’s framework risks labeling any aggressive, partisan use of legal power as “autocratic.” If a democratic majority packs a court (as FDR threatened), is that autocratic legalism? Scheppele answers with a distinction of entrenchment versus policy . FDR wanted to change policy; Orbán wanted to change the ability of future majorities to ever change policy again . The latter is autocratic legalism; the former is constitutional hardball within a still-competitive system.
: Parliaments are sidelined through majoritarian bullying, decree powers, or structural rule changes.
: Illiberal reforms are presented as ordinary variations of democratic practice, making it difficult for international monitors or domestic courts to intervene. The 10-Step Playbook for Destroying Democracy Autocratic Legalism - The University of Chicago Law Review autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
Unlike 20th-century dictators who seized power through tanks and violence, contemporary autocrats rely on teams of lawyers and constitutional experts. Kim Lane Scheppele highlights that approximately 70% of major executive power expansions since 1990 have been achieved through statutory or constitutional law.
Kim Lane Scheppele, “Autocratic Legalism” (2018) and her 2026 EUI working paper, “The New Legal Arsenal of Illiberalism.” The latter is autocratic legalism; the former is
The process typically follows a specific "script": Win free and fair elections.
Ethical, normative, and scholarly debates The latter is autocratic legalism
This article is based on the ongoing research and publications of Kim Lane Scheppele. Further insights can be found in her Chicago Unbound publication and her contributions to Verfassungsblog.