AfD loses at the Constitutional Court: No money for extremists in the Mainz state parliament

The employees of MPs and parliamentary groups in the Rhineland-Palatinate state parliament must also be further examined for political “reliability”. An application for regulatory review by the AfD faction has now been rejected by the state's Constitutional Court in Koblenz.

In 2025, Rhineland-Palatinate was the first federal state to react to reports that numerous extremists were employed in AfD factions. Bayerischer Rundfunk estimated the number of extremists in the AfD parliamentary group at “more than 100”. The taz had already reported in 2018.

In July 2025, the Mainz state parliament passed a joint draft law by the SPD, CDU, Greens and FDP. The Left is not represented in the Mainz state parliament. According to this, state financing of MPs and parliamentary group employees is excluded if they are not “reliable”. Anyone who supports efforts against the free democratic basic order or has supported them in the past five years is particularly considered unreliable. The President of the State Parliament carries out the examination; currently this is the CDU MP Matthias Lammert. He can rely in particular on information from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, but at the end he must make an “overall assessment”.

In November 2025, the AfD parliamentary group applied for a review of the law by the state constitutional court against this change to the parliamentary law and parliamentary group law. The new regulation violates the free mandate of the MPs, the parliamentary group autonomy and the professional freedom of the employees.

But the Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate has now rejected the AfD lawsuit in its entirety. The background check is compatible with the state constitution. Although the regulation encroaches on the rights of representatives and parliamentary groups, this is justified to protect the free democratic basic order and the state parliament's ability to work. The state constitution is based on a fundamental decision for “defensive democracy”.

The exclusion from funding for extremist employees was also proportionate, according to the judges, because there was no “employment ban” for all AfD members, as the AfD had feared. According to the ruling, mere AfD membership is not enough to exclude funding as long as the party is not banned. Rather, it depends on the specific behavior of the respective employee.

So far there have been three use cases for the new regulation, all of which affected the AfD parliamentary group. One employee refused the background check and two others were deemed unreliable. The individual cases are still being examined in court.

So far only Hesse has followed Rhineland-Palatinate's example. Other parliaments initially wanted to wait for the outcome of the constitutional review in Rhineland-Palatinate.

“The fact that the state parliament does not have to be the financier of its own enemies of the constitution has now been decided by the highest court,” commented state parliament President Lammert. He immediately sent the judgment published on Tuesday to his colleagues in the Bundestag and the state parliaments. Rhineland-Palatinate sees itself as a “pioneer” in protecting democracy from enemies of the constitution, said Lammert.