The courts can defend Germany’s constitution. But rebuilding trust among disillusioned voters is a political task.

On 29 October, a court in Lüneburg delivered another setback to Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD). Judges rejected the Lower Saxony branch’s attempt to halt enhanced intelligence monitoring. The ruling is serious. So is the political climate in which it arrived.

What the court decided

The Higher Administrative Court upheld an earlier interim decision in Hanover. It found sufficient evidence of activity directed against human dignity and democratic principles. The intelligence service may continue monitoring the Lower Saxony branch under the law. The main proceedings remain pending. This is not a party ban.

The voters are still there

The AfD won 20.8% of valid second votes in Germany’s 2025 federal election, more than 10 million votes. Some supporters embrace its immigration positions. Others may use their ballots to protest against parties they no longer trust. It would be a mistake to treat every AfD voter as an extremist, just as it would be wrong to overlook the court’s findings.

The cost of living matters

Households do not experience economic conditions as a single inflation rate. Higher prices accumulated over several years continue to squeeze budgets even when annual inflation slows. Immigration, regional identity and distrust of institutions also shape the AfD’s appeal. No single explanation is enough.

Ukraine and political priorities

Germany’s support for Ukraine and its defence commitments have security arguments behind them. Russia’s invasion changed Europe’s strategic calculations. Voters can nevertheless question budget priorities and ask whether politicians have done enough to ease domestic pressures. It would be inaccurate to claim without evidence that Ukraine spending caused Germany’s cost-of-living crisis.

What mainstream parties must answer

The courts must assess constitutional threats independently. Elected politicians must earn public trust through policy and performance. Surveillance cannot replace the difficult work of listening to disaffected voters. Germany’s established parties need to explain their choices without excusing anti-democratic conduct.

A ruling cannot repair trust

The Lüneburg decision concerns lawful monitoring in a constitutional democracy. The AfD’s electoral success presents a different political problem. A court can decide what an intelligence service may do. It cannot persuade a household worried about next month’s bills to trust the government again.

Related analysis: Europe Built a Firewall Against the Far Right. The Politics Crossed It Anyway and When Economic Fear Weakens Political Taboo.

Sources: Lower Saxony Interior Ministry; Federal Returning Officer.