Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court on Wednesday heard a case brought by Jan Wenzel Schmidt, who argues that his expulsion from the AfD parliamentary group was unlawful. The judges examined questions ranging from lawmakers’ rights within a group to whether the AfD followed its own rules when voting on his removal. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.

Schmidt, a member of the Bundestag from Saxony-Anhalt, was expelled after the group’s executive board described an interview he gave to the online outlet Nius as damaging to its reputation. In the February 2026 interview, he criticised Tobias Rausch, the AfD’s general secretary in Saxony-Anhalt, whose relatives had worked in the office of an AfD member of the Bundestag. The group voted by a large majority to remove Schmidt. He has challenged the decision at the court.

The case gives the court an opportunity to set out principles for expelling Bundestag members from parliamentary groups. The court has not previously ruled on such an expulsion. Vice-President Ann-Katrin Kaufhold identified three central questions: whether the constitution gives lawmakers a right to remain in a group, whether they can require it to follow its own rules, and whether the rule of law imposes minimum standards on an expulsion.

The lawyers disagreed over the consequences of becoming an independent lawmaker. The AfD group’s representative, Ulrich Vosgerau, argued that parliamentary rights do not guarantee a place in a group, describing such groups as voluntary associations. Schmidt’s lawyer, Roland Ulbrich, said independent members are at a disadvantage because they cannot alone submit motions or major inquiries and may participate in committee votes only in an advisory capacity. Vosgerau countered that giving independent members voting rights in committees could leave them overrepresented.

The hearing also focused on the AfD group’s electronic voting devices. Schmidt’s lawyer argued that the equipment was not adequately protected against manipulation, but said he had no specific evidence that the vote on the expulsion had been tampered with. Vosgerau said technical manipulation was not possible.

Judges questioned a group employee responsible for the devices. He said they were acquired at the start of the current parliamentary term, after the group had used loaned equipment. According to the employee, secret ballots using paper slips had taken place once during the current term and once in the previous one, when a request for a secret vote had come unexpectedly.

Both sides accepted that the rule of law sets limits on parliamentary-group expulsions, but differed on what those limits mean. Vosgerau said the constitution bars only decisions that are grossly arbitrary and that the court should not assess the merits of the grounds for expulsion. Ulbrich argued that the AfD group had relied on internal party disputes, which he said should be handled by party arbitration bodies rather than used as grounds for removing a lawmaker from the parliamentary group.

Asked how Schmidt’s interview had harmed the parliamentary group rather than the party, Vosgerau said several AfD members in Saxony-Anhalt also belonged to the Bundestag group, and that other lawmakers feared Schmidt might reveal further damaging information. Judge Thomas Offenloch said the response addressed his question, while noting that whether it was persuasive was a separate matter. Neither Schmidt nor members of the AfD group spoke during the hearing; their lawyers presented their arguments.

Sources: FAZ.