Top Court Judge Vote Collapses Over Plagiarism Row

Bundestag Halts Key Constitutional Court Elections

The scheduled election of three new judges to Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has been unexpectedly canceled, triggering a wave of political and institutional fallout. The Bundestag was set to vote on the nominees—Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, Günter Spinner, and Ann-Katrin Kaufhold—before the summer recess. Instead, the vote was pulled from the agenda following internal conflict between the governing CDU/CSU-SPD coalition.

The controversy stems from fierce opposition within the CDU/CSU bloc to Brosius-Gersdorf, who had been nominated by the SPD. The rejection was reportedly influenced by a plagiarism accusation that critics claim undermines her academic integrity. With tensions escalating and no replacement process in place, the three high-level court positions remain unfilled. The next opportunity for a vote is unlikely before autumn.

Court Stays Operational, But Tensions Rise

Despite the political deadlock, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe remains functional. Judges whose terms have technically expired—such as Josef Christ and Vice President Doris König—will continue in their roles until successors are officially appointed. Another judge, Ulrich Maidowski, has requested an early departure for health reasons, which will add a fourth vacancy by late September.

Legal provisions allow for transitional periods. Judges may remain in office until replacements are chosen, and if no successor is elected within three months of a nomination list, the Bundesrat may step in. This deadline for Josef Christ’s seat expires in late August. However, as the law only allows the Bundesrat to optionally assume control, it is uncertain whether it will act or defer to the Bundestag again.

Accusations and Academic Timeline Disputed

The main obstacle to the vote was the CDU/CSU’s resistance to Brosius-Gersdorf, fueled by an online post from Austrian plagiarism researcher Stefan Weber. Weber flagged alleged text similarities between her 1997 doctoral dissertation and the 2000 habilitation thesis of her husband, legal scholar Hubertus Gersdorf.

Experts quickly pointed out the chronological discrepancy, noting that a later work cannot serve as the source for an earlier one. Weber himself clarified on social media that he had not directly accused Brosius-Gersdorf of plagiarism, and the University of Hamburg—where she earned her degree—sees no immediate cause for review. Nonetheless, the CDU seized on the matter, causing a breakdown in the coalition’s agreement.

Legal scholars and feminist organizations condemned the affair as politically motivated. The German Women Lawyers Association, the New Judges’ Association, and the German Women’s Council issued a joint statement accusing unnamed political actors of damaging public trust in judicial institutions through baseless last-minute attacks.

Gender Politics and Ideological Pressure

The episode has sparked a broader debate over gender bias and political ideology in judicial appointments. SPD-affiliated women’s groups labeled the campaign against Brosius-Gersdorf a “misogynistic backlash,” citing her known positions on reproductive rights. SPD party leader Lars Klingbeil echoed the criticism, warning that the breakdown of consensus on such nominations undermines public confidence in the legal system.

Klingbeil stressed that constitutional judges should be trusted to hold diverse views on controversial topics without their appointments being blocked for ideological reasons. He warned that if parties refuse to compromise, “the country breaks down.”

Several opposition leaders, including figures from the Greens and the Left Party, argued that the CDU had aligned itself too closely with far-right elements in torpedoing Brosius-Gersdorf’s candidacy. Green party co-leaders Britta Haßelmann and Katharina Dröge went as far as demanding the resignation of CDU parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn if a majority cannot be secured in a special session. The Greens fully support all three original candidates and insist that the election must be resolved promptly.

Legal Community and Bundesrat Observe Closely

The German Bar Association (DAV) issued a rare statement condemning the political nature of the stalled vote. It warned that the rising trend of personal attacks and partisan blockades in judicial selection poses long-term risks to the court’s legitimacy. With more than 60,000 lawyers in its membership, the DAV’s intervention underscores the seriousness of the moment.

So far, the Bundesrat has not announced whether it will act once its constitutional authority to nominate kicks in. If the Bundestag fails to reach agreement by late August, the chamber of Germany’s federal states would be permitted to choose a replacement for Josef Christ. However, insiders suggest that the Bundesrat might delay action if signs of consensus emerge in the interim.

Election Postponed Until Fall—Or Sooner?

While Bundestag President Julia Klöckner has yet to issue an official statement, sources from within the governing parties indicate that the vote will now likely be postponed until after the summer break. Some factions, including the Greens, are demanding a special session during the recess to restore confidence in the process and show respect to the court and its candidates.

Whether new candidates will be introduced or existing nominations reconfirmed remains open. Political pressure continues to build, and the debate has grown into a larger struggle over the independence of the judiciary, the role of political compromise, and how ideological disputes should—or should not—affect appointments to Germany’s highest court.