Poland's Constitutional Court in Crisis: Tusk Government Clashes with Opposition Over Judicial Power

Riot police have been deployed outside Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal amidst an escalating dispute over judicial appointments, pitting Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government against the nationalist opposition. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Warsaw building on Friday night after judges elected by the current parliamentary majority announced the suspension of the tribunal’s president, Bogdan Swieczkowski, and his deputy, Bartlomiej Sochanski. This move drew sharp condemnation from the far-right Law and Justice party (PiS) and prompted President Karol Nawrocki, a PiS ally, to cut short a trip to Senegal and return to Poland. Police reported three arrests for attempting to enter the court complex. Prime Minister Tusk stated that decisive action is necessary to reinstate the rule of law, which he claims has been undermined by years of political interference in the Constitutional Tribunal under PiS rule.

The Constitutional Tribunal holds the crucial power to determine whether laws align with Poland’s constitution, making its independence and the composition of its bench politically vital. The current conflict traces back to 2015, during the transition of power from Tusk’s Civic Platform party to PiS. The outgoing parliament appointed five judges, but the Constitutional Tribunal later deemed only three of these appointments legally valid. The subsequent PiS majority then appointed replacements, even for the three legally filled seats. Then-President Andrzej Duda notably refused to swear in the three validly elected judges.

During its eight years in government, PiS enacted broad judicial reforms that critics argued increased political influence over the courts. PiS now serves as the main opposition party in Poland. Wojciech Przybylski, editor-in-chief of Visegrad Insight, described the situation as a “power play to control who serves as a justice, in what positions, and how the court system operates in Poland,” adding that the former PiS government sought a court system and tribunal that would enable the passage of laws supporting their ideological stance and assert sovereignty over the EU. Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka, an associate professor at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, noted that the rule of law crisis intensified after Julia Przyłębska became president of the CC, with controversial laws reforming the judicial system leading the court to be perceived as a rubber-stamp body and an active political player supporting illiberal policies.

The European Court of Human Rights, a body separate from the EU, had previously ruled in 2021 that an improperly appointed judge’s participation violated a company’s right to a tribunal established by law. In December 2025, the EU’s highest court further ruled that the tribunal failed to meet the standards of an independent court and that its judgments challenging EU law infringed upon Poland’s obligations as a member state.

Upon returning to power as prime minister in December 2023, Tusk pledged to restore judicial independence. His government has since refused to recognize the legitimacy of the tribunal in its current form and has sought to disregard its rulings. Kustra-Rogatka observed that many supporters of the governing centrist camp have expressed disappointment over the slow progress in restoring the rule of law since 2023, partly due to concerns about the upcoming 2025 presidential election.

This year, the parliament elected eight judges to the 15-member tribunal. President Nawrocki, an ally of Donald Trump, administered the oath to three judges but withheld it from five, who subsequently took their oaths without his presence. The tribunal’s president, Bogdan Swieczkowski, reportedly refused to allow these five judges to commence their duties.

The latest confrontation was triggered on Friday when Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska announced one-month suspensions for court president Swieczkowski and his deputy, Sochanski, declaring she would assume leadership of the tribunal. However, questions have been raised regarding Korwin-Piotrowska’s authority to make such a decision, with her claim based on her overall judicial service rather than seniority on the tribunal. In parallel actions, Justice Minister Waldemar Zurek initiated steps that could lead to criminal proceedings against the suspended president and deputy. Far-right critics have denounced these measures as politically motivated attempts to pressure the suspended justices. PiS supporters gathered outside the court to protest the suspensions. Police stated their deployment was in response to information from Korwin-Piotrowska regarding potential threats to judges and staff and risks to public order, asserting that officers were securing the grounds and had not entered the tribunal building.

President Nawrocki returned to Poland mid-flight from Senegal and arrived at the tribunal overnight. By Saturday morning, he had convened urgent consultations with parliamentary representatives, characterizing the events as a forceful seizure of a constitutional institution. Tusk, however, defended the actions as necessary for restoring the rule of law, emphasizing that reversing the legacy of PiS required difficult measures.

The ongoing confrontation presents two intertwined issues: determining rightful membership on the tribunal and the legality of the measures used to alter its leadership. Marcin Matczak, a prominent Polish lawyer, suggested that the far-right opposition is defending its “remaining institutional stronghold,” while the centrist government aims to “restore balance to the Constitutional Tribunal.” However, restoring independence also necessitates scrutinizing the current government’s decisions. The appointment of Maciej Berek, a former minister in Tusk’s cabinet, to the tribunal in September drew opposition from some coalition members who argued it contradicted promises to depoliticize the judiciary. Matczak posited that with parliamentary elections looming next year, Tusk might be adopting a tougher stance to energize supporters frustrated by the slow pace of reform, though he cautioned this could alienate moderate voters.

A potential flashpoint is a tribunal judges’ meeting scheduled for November 3. Attempts to lift immunity could escalate the confrontation if the assembly’s composition or quorum is challenged. Matczak also warned that these events could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future governments to justify police intervention in the Constitutional Tribunal to resolve legal disputes, potentially causing long-term institutional damage regardless of immediate political gains.