Legal opinion declares AfD unconstitutional, reigniting debate on party ban

A detailed legal opinion released on 25 June 2026 by the Berlin-based non-governmental organisation Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) states that the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is “clearly unconstitutional” under Article 21(2) of the German Basic Law. The analysis, compiled by a team of eight authors over 13 months under the direction of lawyer Bijan Moini, runs to some 1,500 pages (one outlet cites 3,062 pages) and draws on hundreds of publicly available sources.

The report’s conclusions

According to the GFF, the AfD systematically violates two foundational constitutional principles: the democratic principle and the guarantee of human dignity. The party’s political concept aims at “the exclusion, disparagement and extensive legal devaluation” of Germans with a migration background, Muslims, asylum seekers and trans people, thereby creating different classes of human beings.

The AfD is unconstitutional according to the standard of Article 21 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law.

The report argues that each ground alone would suffice for a ban, and that evidence for both is well-documented.

Attack on democracy and human dignity

Regarding the democratic principle, the authors emphasise that the AfD calls for criminal prosecution of politicians from other parties for decisions it opposes. “Politically motivated criminal prosecution clearly violates the democratic principle,” Moini said at the report’s presentation in Berlin. On human dignity, the report details an ethnic‑cultural understanding of the people (völkisch concept) that classifies citizens by origin, contrary to the Basic Law’s concept of a civic nation. The AfD’s policy also denies fundamental rights by advocating forced deportations to countries where individuals face torture.

Their political concept is directed at the exclusion, disparagement and extensive legal devaluation of certain Germans with a migration background, of Muslims, of asylum seekers and further social groups such as trans people.

The GFF notes that while the party expels some members, its leadership – named as co‑chair Alice Weidel, MEP Maximilian Krah and Saxony‑Anhalt politician Hans‑Thomas Tillschneider – remains untouched and continues to steer the radical course.

Political reactions

SPD co‑chair Bärbel Bas said democrats are obliged to act when democracy is threatened, calling for legal steps alongside the political contest. Co‑chair Lars Klingbeil said he takes the report “very seriously” and expects security authorities to examine the new evidence thoroughly. Green faction leaders Britta Haßelmann and Katharina Dröge wrote to the heads of the CDU/CSU, SPD and Left parliamentary groups, requesting talks with the goal of bringing a joint ban motion to the Bundestag. Haßelmann argued that the AfD’s “ever more blatant radicalisation and unconcealed rejection of the liberal‑democratic basic order cannot be overlooked.” Dröge stressed that a ban procedure is now “necessary, to finally set it in motion.” CDU MP Elisabeth Winke also called for the court to be allowed to examine the AfD’s constitutionality.

When our democracy is threatened, all democrats are obliged to act.

The Union, however, remains opposed to a ban, citing the multi‑year duration of such proceedings. A similar initiative by the Greens one year earlier found no support.

Background

In February 2026 the Cologne Administrative Court ruled in an interim decision that there is sufficient certainty of anti‑constitutional activities within the AfD, but that these do not yet shape the party’s overall image to establish an anti‑constitutional basic tendency. A final decision in the main proceedings is still pending. The domestic intelligence agency (BfV) had earlier classified the AfD as “securely right‑wing extremist,” yet a court injunction means the party continues to be treated nationwide only as a suspected case of right‑wing extremism.