How is Verfassungsblog actually funded? Among those who have recently taken an official interest in this question is, of all parties, the AfD. A few weeks ago, Beatrix von Storch submitted a parliamentary inquiry in the Bundestag (No. 23). She wanted to know what kind of funding “the website https://verfassungsblog.de” receives from the federal budget.

She could have looked it up herself. It’s all public and transparent. But curiosity was hardly her main motive. This is a message.

Authoritarian populists are watching us. Of course they are – just as they are watching many other organizations of civil society. No one who follows our work will be surprised. For years, we have worked hard to analyze the strategies of authoritarian populists, identify the vulnerabilities of democracy and the rule of law, and develop effective countermeasures. That the German branch of authoritarian populism now explicitly targets Verfassungsblog in its efforts to neutralize any threat to it is not cause for alarm. It is a confirmation. This is exactly what we must be prepared for.

The authoritarian populists target Verfassungsblog not only for what it does, but also for what it is: an open space dedicated to the serious and systematic pursuit of truth. On Verfassungsblog, people who know something about law, the state, and the constitution share that knowledge with each other and with the public. We create a space where people can engage freely and reasonably about politics and its normative foundations. The authoritarian populists would prefer to close that space – quickly, efficiently, and quietly. They know why. And so do we.

Our work has an impact. In Saarland, there are concrete plans to draw lessons from our Thuringia Project and strengthen the state constitutional court against strategic blockades and other authoritarian-populist attacks. If that happens, this will be the next constitutional amendment – after the 2024 amendment to the German basic law – brought about by knowledge we have generated and published.

Currently, we are working on our Judicial Resilience Project. We have developed scenarios of how the capture and obstruction of independent judiciaries could unfold in Germany’s sixteen federal states. The results will be published in early December.

In 2026, we will turn to knowledge institutions – the media and academia. As already mentioned: we are in the sights of authoritarian populists. They want to put an end to what we do. We want to understand how they would do it. We want to know, so that we – and everyone else – can prepare for what lies ahead.

++++++++++Advertisement++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The question is entirely justified: how do we finance all this? More than half of our income (the rest comes from project funding) consists of donations. Individuals and organizations of all kinds support us with small and large contributions because they believe our work matters. That support is essential. Without it, we could not continue.

May I assume you, too, think our work matters? If so, thank you. There are two ways to contribute: you can support us regularly and become part of our community of donors. How much per month? That’s up to you. As a reference point, consider what you would pay for a subscription if Verfassungsblog charged for access – which we do not, because we are, as you know, Diamond Open Access.

The other option is a one-time donation of a reasonable amount. That, too, helps us tremendously to get through 2026. If you can, please be generous. These are hard times, I know. That makes it all the more important to stick together and not let ourselves be broken. As Isaac Newton said: what goes up must come down. We cannot prevent the world from changing in frightening ways. But we can prevent fear from overwhelming and destroying us.

Help fund Verfassungsblog in 2026. You can donate here.

*

Editor’s Pick

by MAXIM BÖNNEMANN

I spent last evening on the train from Berlin to Cologne. At some point, the familiar announcement came: the train’s arrival would be delayed indefinitely. My seatmate grumbled; I was pleased. On my way to the platform, I had bought Ben Markovits’s The Rest of Our Lives. Not much happens in the book. Tom, a law professor in his fifties, drives across the United States, reflects on whether to leave his wife, meets old friends, and plays basketball with strangers. His inner life, too, is free of any dramatic outbursts. And yet I could not put the book down. With calm precision and elegance, it captures that moment when life might tilt toward change – and in its restraint, it generates a warmth that stayed with me well into the night.

*

The Week on Verfassungsblog

summarised by JANA TRAPP

Before the leaves had fully fallen, Karlsruhe stirred them up again: the Federal Constitutional Court’s Egenberger decision has arrived – yet the great European autumn storm many expected has failed to materialize. Instead of reigniting old conflicts with Luxembourg, the Second Senate presents itself in a conciliatory mood. But look closely, and you’ll find quite a few sour notes beneath the harmony.

A reconciliation of the two courts concerning the interpretation of fundamental rights? Maybe. A step back in domestic doctrine? Absolutely. HEIKO SAUER (DE) talks of a “realignment” in European constitutional case law, whereas LINDA KREWERTH (DE) argues that the Court has found a way to align its case law with the CJEU’s guidance while largely remaining true to its own line. MATTIAS WENDEL and SARAH GEIGER (DE) praise the Senate’s delicate balance, only to encounter an “unexpected surprise” in the end. Finally, ANDRÉ REINELT (DE) describes it as two steps forward, two steps back.

While Karlsruhe fine-tunes European legal fabric, Erfurt focuses on hard facts of equality. In the Daimler case, the Federal Labour Court ruled that Equal Pay claims must be based on the exact salary of the comparable colleague, not a statistical average. ANNA LEONI GROTECLAES and PHILIPP ROLLER (DE) see the Decision as a real lever for pay justice and a new accountability for employers.

Storm clouds continue to gather for equality rights across the pond, reports RYAN THORESON (EN): The US Supreme Court seems poised to strike down nationwide bans on so-called “conversion therapy” – treatments aiming to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBT people. Current free speech rulings suggest these legal prohibitions won’t hold much longer.

A very different matter – one quite literally decided by chance – keeps SEVERIN FUCHS (DE) occupied. He argues that the idea of drafting military service by lottery sounds democratically charming but is constitutionally hazardous: egalitarian in spirit but legally flawed. Being lucky is arguably no fundamental right.

Technological governance is the order of the day in the EU, but the regulatory web behind it is highly complex. DAPHNE KELLER (EN) examines the transparency rules of the Digital Services Act and asks how – and which – researchers can make use of them.

SILVIE ROHR (EN) is skeptical of yet another additional European company form and advocates for a “28th Regime” based on a sandbox model that playfully tests the integration of European company law and could breathe new experimental life into the system.

While Brussels tinkers, Luxembourg faces a real test: On November 11, the European Court of Justice will rule on the Directive for adequate minimum wages. MARTIN HÖPNER (DE) explains what is at stake.

HANNA EKLUND (EN) turns to Denmark, where the ECJ must decide whether the so-called “ghetto law” breaches anti-discrimination rules. When neighborhoods with “non-Western” residents are singled out for special measures, the question arises whether the EU citizenship is turning into a tiered, ethnically defined membership.

In Australia, the space for free thought is shrinking where democracy ought to be nurtured: in schools. QIFAN ZHANG (EN) shows how the governmental ban on social media narrows democratic education in the name of child protection – a global trend with worrying implications.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands’ Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on exporting F-35 jet parts to Israel. While JOOP VOETELINK and MARTEN ZWANENBURG (EN) view the judgment as a “judicial compromise,” it seems unlikely that exports will resume any time soon.

Switzerland takes the opposite tack: The Federal Administrative Court strongly reins in executive power. JOHANN-JAKOB CHERVET (DE) argues that emergency powers are no license for constitutional breaches, not even in times of crisis.

Further south, Peru finds itself in open constitutional crisis: RODRIGO MARUY (EN) reports how spiraling violence between Congress and the police is costing democracy dearly.

Italy, by contrast, takes a calculated risk. MATTEO PAOLANTI (EN) calls the new AI law a “constitutional gamble”: national flair with a European risk premium.

This week’s arc runs from constitutional brain teasers in Karlsruhe to social litmus tests in Luxembourg. Europe keeps moving, and Germany’s Grundgesetz watches closely. That’s enough of this legal autumn haze for now – time to enjoy a breath of fresh air!

*

That’s it for this week. Take care and all the best!

Yours,

the Verfassungsblog Team

If you would like to receive the weekly editorial as an e-mail, you can subscribe here.

The post Counting on You to Count on Us appeared first on Verfassungsblog.