This article explores the architecture of Scheppele’s theory, its empirical grounding in Central Europe, its evolution through the Trump and Orbán eras, and its urgent implications for liberal democracies today. While the keyword often attaches “UPenn” to her name due to her influential years at Penn’s Law School and the Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy, Scheppele’s institutional home is now Princeton. But her intellectual DNA remains deeply woven into the legal realism of the Philadelphia-New York corridor. In her landmark 2018 article, Autocratic Legalism (University of Chicago Law Review), Scheppele draws a sharp line between two familiar forms of governance. The first is authoritarian legality —the brute-force law of dictatorships, where courts are rubber stamps and legal forms are mere window dressing for raw power. The second is liberal legality —the ideal of the rule of law, where general, public, prospective, and consistent norms bind both citizen and sovereign.
While she moved to Princeton’s Department of Sociology in 2005 (with affiliations to the Woodrow Wilson School and the Program in Law and Public Policy), her voice remains prominent in Penn circles. She has been a frequent speaker at the at Penn, and many of her key post-2010 articles were developed during sabbaticals and workshops in Philadelphia. The association is so strong that even the University of Chicago Law Review symposium on autocratic legalism included UPenn scholars as commentators, reinforcing the mental link. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
The keyword’s durability lies in its uncomfortable truth: Law is not automatically the friend of liberty. Law can be a weapon. Procedures can be parasites on principles. And the most dangerous enemies of democracy are not those who burn the courthouse, but those who quietly rewrite the rules of admission. While she moved to Princeton’s Department of Sociology
In the twilight of the 20th century, political scientists largely agreed on a simple, reassuring binary. Democracies had courts, constitutions, and the rule of law. Authoritarian regimes had show trials, secret police, and arbitrary edicts. The path from one to the other was violent and obvious—a coup, a revolution, a tank in the square. from anthropology to law
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.
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.