5 Spring 2026 judicial language persists, yet legality becomes at odds with, or detached from, morals.5 This brief article argues that the transformation of the German judiciary was not the product of legal collapse but of legal continuity redirected toward ideological ends. II. When Law Becomes a Weapon The corruption of the German judiciary did not occur through dramatic abolition. There was no decree dissolving judicial independence. Instead, transformation occurred incrementally – through reinterpretation, institutional adaptation, and professional accommodation. Most significantly, under the Führerprinzip, the will of the Führer – Adolf Hitler – was treated as fully supreme. Law was no longer understood as a system of general rules binding even the sovereign. As the theorist Carl Schmitt articulated, political decision supplied legitimacy.6 Judicial fidelity increasingly meant loyalty to leadership rather than adherence to abstract legal principles. The result was not immediate but rather structural bifurcation. As Ernst Fraenkel aptly observed in The Dual State, ordinary courts continued to adjudicate routine civil and commercial matters, preserving the appearance of continuity. Cases involving race, political dissent, or threats to the “national community” were diverted to special jurisdictions designed for ideological enforcement.7 Franz Neumann’s characterization of the Nazi regime as a “Behemoth” captured the growing dominance of political power over legal restraint.8 This transformation proved decisive. Judges did not perceive themselves as participants in revolutionary illegality. They interpreted statutes and issued opinions in conventional doctrinal language. Judicial reasoning absorbed political expectation. The defendants at the Judges Trial refused to accept guilt and asserted their conscience to be clean.9 The trial inspired the following: [The 1961 film directed by Stanley Kramer] Judgment at Nuremberg … even more remarkable is … [that] one of the four defendants [reduced from sixteen to four for the film], E[rnst] Janning (Burt Lancaster), makes a full confession to the court … Janning accuses his three co-defendants – stereotypes of a conservative die-hard, an anxious opportunist, and a fanatical true believer – of corruption, callousness, and wickedness and himself of being the worst of all for the reason that he knew what kind of people they were and still went along with them … Hanno Loewy has argued that, as a courtroom drama, 5. Lon L. Fuller, THE MORALITY OF LAW 39-40 (2d ed. 1969) (“Certainly there can be no rational ground for asserting that a man can have a moral obligation to obey a legal rule that does not exist, or is kept secret from him, or that came into existence only after he had acted, or was unintelligible, or was contradicted by another rule of the same system, or commanded the impossible, or changed every minute…The citizen’s predicament becomes more difficult when … there is a general and drastic deterioration in legality, such as occurred in Germany under Hitler.”). 6. See Carl Schmitt, “The Führer Protects the Law: On Adolf Hitler’s Reichstag Address of 13 July 1934,” in THE THIRD REICH SOURCEBOOK 63-67 (Anson Rabinbach & Sander L. Gilman eds., 2013). 7. Ernst Fraenkel, THE DUAL STATE: A CONTRIBUTION TO THE THEORY OF DICTATORSHIP (E. A. Shils et al. trans., 1941). 8. Franz Neumann, BEHEMOTH: THE STRUCTURE AND PRACTICE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM (1942). 9. See Altstötter, supra note 3, at 950 (Defendant Petersen said that in all his actions, he “was guided by the ideal of fulfilling my duty and of serving my country. It was solely my conscience that formed the basis for my actions…my conscience is clear.”) (Defendant Nebelung testified, “I was a German judge. I followed the laws of my country and my knowledge and my conscience in passing judgment.”), 952 (Defendant Oeschey proclaimed, “I always acted in the belief and in the conviction that I was doing right … and it was a matter of conscience for me not to misuse the law in a criminal way, but to apply it in accordance with the will of the legislator…” and Defendant Altstoetter declared the “charges which the prosecution has raised against me because of my alleged participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity … do not apply to me. My conscience is free of any guilt … I always only served law and justice…”), 953 (He concluded by saying to the Tribunal “[t]here is the enormous danger that German justice was shown here in a picture which, even referring to the time between 1933 and 1945, is not identical with actual facts … I know that German administration of justice up to the very end was the best administration of the Reich …[and] [a]ll that could be desired was that the courage which was shown among the German judiciary at those times would have been shown anywhere.”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=