Rhineland-Palatinate court hears AfD lawsuit over security vetting of parliamentary staff

Constitutional challenge in Koblenz

The Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate in Koblenz opened oral proceedings on Friday at 10:00 to evaluate a legal challenge filed by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group. The case takes the form of a judicial review procedure, known as a Normenkontrollverfahren, which allows parliamentary groups to contest state statutes directly before the constitutional bench. At issue are the amendments to the Members of Parliament and Parliamentary Groups Act approved by the state parliament in July 2025. The AfD contends that the legal changes unlawfully target its staff and impede its parliamentary activities. Court President Lars Brocker is expected to announce the date for the formal ruling at the conclusion of the hearing, though the decision may also be delivered to the parties in writing.

Scope and mechanics of the vetting statute

Under the contested legislation, which has been in effect for roughly one year, all staff members employed by lawmakers and parliamentary groups must undergo mandatory reliability vetting. The screening process draws upon information from the Federal Central Register, domestic intelligence agencies, and the State Criminal Police Office. Individual administrative determinations are made directly by the president of the Landtag, though these administrative rulings remain open to standard judicial review. If an employee fails the security check or refuses to submit to the vetting process, the state stops disbursing public funds for their salary. According to state parliamentary records, more than 600 staff members working for lawmakers and political groups have already undergone these background reviews under the framework.

Competing political and constitutional arguments

State lawmakers established the screening framework to shield the parliament against risks to the free democratic basic order, to maintain the legislature's operational capability, and to protect institutional security and trustworthiness. Former Landtag President Hendrik Hering of the Social Democratic Party justified the measure by asserting that public finances must not support adversaries of the constitutional order.

It cannot and must not be that the enemies of our state and our free democratic basic order are paid with public tax money.

The AfD faction rejects this justification, characterizing the framework as a targeted legislative measure designed specifically to disadvantage its political work. Damian Lohr, the parliamentary secretary for the AfD group, attacked the regulation as an overreach against dissenting political viewpoints.

With this arbitrary act, unwelcome opinions are to be suppressed like by the thought police.

Legal grounds raised by the opposition

In its formal petition, the AfD group lists an extensive catalog of constitutional violations against the state legislation. The party argues that the mandatory checks violate the principle of legal certainty, the free mandate of elected members, and the constitutional right of lawmakers to adequate resources and office equipment. The complaint further asserts breaches of parliamentary group autonomy, party privilege protections, political parties' right to equal opportunity, and freedom of political activity. The AfD also argues that the framework infringes upon employees' professional freedom, their right to informational self-determination, and the constitutional ban on retroactive legislation. The Rhineland-Palatinate Constitutional Court acts as the final arbiter on whether the statute complies with the state constitution.