Last Bastion – How Germany's Courts Are Becoming a Political Target

It is no longer only the political fringes where the language of contempt is taking root. When Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) declared the day after a constitutionally confirmed legal principle that he would not change his stance, it was no slip of the tongue – it was deliberate policy. On June 2, 2025, the 6th Chamber of the Berlin Administrative Court ruled in cases VG 6 L 191/25 et al. that the rejection of asylum seekers at the German-Polish border without a prior asylum procedure is unlawful. Three Somali asylum seekers had been stopped by federal police in Frankfurt (Oder) on May 9, 2025, despite expressing a request for asylum, and were returned to Poland that same day – without a hearing, without due process, without a Dublin procedure. The court made it clear: this practice violates both German and European law. The decisions are final.

And yet, that same evening, Dobrindt declared that the government would “maintain the current practice,” insisting the ruling was “only a single case.” In truth, it was anything but: it was a defense of the rule of law against a political practice that refuses clarity. What was once seen as a neutral authority is now labeled a disruption. Judges, administrative courts, constitutional bodies – they are increasingly suspected of undermining the “enforcement power of the state” when they rule against deportations. The parallels to developments in the United States under Donald Trump are striking – only now the CDU/CSU in 2025 is beginning to translate Trump’s lessons into German bureaucratic language. Because the climate has shifted. According to the latest poll, the CDU/CSU stands at 26.5%, still two points ahead of the AfD. Together, they effectively dominate the debate – not only numerically, but rhetorically. What has long been political reality in the U.S. – a systematic attack on the independence of the judiciary, flanked by media campaigns and mobilization against “left-wing judges” – is beginning to take shape here as well. When Dobrindt speaks of “abuse of asylum under the protection of the judiciary,” he no longer marks the judge as part of the state, but as its saboteur. A dangerous game with the separation of powers.

Meanwhile, the SPD stagnates at 16%, the Greens remain stuck at 10.5%. The political left is fragmented – 10.5% for Die Linke, 4% for the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. And the FDP? Also at 4% – adrift in the irrelevance of a hollowed-out liberalism. The political landscape is marked by a tectonic shift, in which right-wing populist and conservative narratives about migration policy, law and order, and national strength are in the ascendancy. But this is not just about numbers. It is about a vision of humanity. About whether courts exist to serve the people – or the state. About whether fundamental rights remain individual rights – or are subjected to political expedience. In Berlin, administrative judges – like those of the 6th Chamber – do not rule with pathos, but with fidelity to the law. They examine individual cases, weigh protection needs, ensure hearings take place, and uphold the integrity of legal standards. What sounds like a normal function of the rule of law is increasingly being framed by segments of the CDU/CSU as “sabotage” – as though justice were an obstacle rather than a safeguard.

The AfD has long embraced this line. But the fact that the CDU/CSU is now following suit – using language eerily similar to the U.S. discourse under Trump – is a warning sign. Whoever declares the courts to be the “last bastion” is also saying: we are on the brink of siege. And this rhetoric has consequences – for migrants, for judges, for a society slowly growing accustomed to authoritarian tones.

Germany must ask itself: is this still a contest for majorities – or already a struggle over the very foundations?