For students, activists, and scholars typing “autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd” into search bars late at night, the answer awaits in her formidable corpus: begin with Autocratic Legalism (2018), then read The Rule of Law and the Eurocrisis (2015), then the Hungary and Poland chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. But also read the dissents—the judges fired in Budapest, the professors investigated in Warsaw, the civil servants purged in Ankara. Their stories are the data points. Scheppele gave us the regression line.
In a 2021 interview with the Journal of Democracy , Scheppele was asked whether she was optimistic. Her answer was characteristically lawyerly: “Optimism is not a category of analysis. But clarity is. If we call autocratic legalism by its name—if we stop saying ‘democratic backsliding’ and start saying ‘legalized autocracy’—then we have a chance to build the defenses. Without the diagnosis, there is no prescription.” Kim Lane Scheppele’s journey from Penn to Princeton, from anthropology to law, from post-Soviet constitutional courts to the Hungarian parliament, has produced one of the most urgent bodies of political-legal thought in the 21st century. Autocratic legalism is her gift to the opposition—a concept sharp enough to cut through the fog of legal bureaucracy and reveal the strongman in the judge’s robe.
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
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.
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. Scheppele gave us the regression line
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.
In the end, autocratic legalism teaches a lesson that democracies forget at their peril: But clarity is
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.