Expulsion of factions in court: expulsion as a precedent

Jan Wenzel Schmidt was a big name in the AfD state association. He was a member of the state parliament, general secretary of the AfD state association in Saxony-Anhalt and has been a member of the Bundestag since 2021. But then there was headwind. Party friends accused him of mixing his political tasks and business interests, such as Chinese diamonds, too closely. Jan Wenzel Schmidt returned the favor and denounced improper travel accounting and nepotism among his opponents. In December 2025, the AfD regional association initiated party expulsion proceedings against Schmidt.

But the mudslinging continued. In February, Schmidt gave the right-wing portal Nius a long interview about the AfD as a “community of prey” and the alleged “campaign of extermination” against him. The AfD parliamentary group in the Bundestag then accused him of damaging his reputation by publishing internal information. On March 3, the parliamentary group excluded Schmidt. Of the 122 MPs present, 98 voted in favour, 14 against and 10 abstained.

Schmidt didn't put up with this either and filed a lawsuit against the faction's exclusion because it violated his parliamentary rights. The Federal Constitutional Court heard the lawsuit this Wednesday. Because Karlsruhe has never had to decide on the exclusion of a parliamentary group, the court will now develop standards for this, announced Vice President Ann-Katrin Kaufhold.

Although Schmidt was present in Karlsruhe, he let his lawyer Roland Ulbrich speak. Ulbrich argued that a member of parliament could only be excluded from the parliamentary group “for important reasons”. However, Schmidt did not violate the group's rules in any way. Here, the power position of a faction is “abused for internal party purposes”.

The faction also violated Schmidt's procedural rights, his lawyer complained. Electronic voting machines were used for the secret vote and had not been tested for security against manipulation. However, the lawyer did not provide any concrete evidence of manipulation.

The AfD faction was represented by lawyer Ulrich Vosgerau. He saw Schmidt's status as a member of parliament "hardly affected" by the faction's exclusion; after all, the non-attached member still had the right to vote and speak in the Bundestag and could also work on a committee. The constitutional standard for the exclusion of factions is therefore the rule of law, which only prohibits “obviously arbitrary” exclusions. Judicial control must remain strictly limited because these are political questions.

Incidentally, Jan Wenzel Schmidt was not excluded because he criticized the AfD, but because he “threatened” his colleagues in the parliamentary group - with further revelations, emphasized Vosgerau. “The AfD MPs do not want to share the parliamentary group with a person who does not rely on arguments but on threats,” said Vosgerau. The voting machines have been in use since 2021 and there have never been any complaints.

The verdict will not be announced for a few months. Until then, Schmidt will remain a non-attached MP.

Schmidt is formally still an AfD member. His membership rights were suspended by the AfD regional arbitration court in January. In December, the state arbitration court will hear the expulsion from the party.

The Karlsruhe proceedings are also likely to interest the Berlin left-wing faction, which is currently discussing the exclusion of MP Vanessa Emde, who is controversial because of her statements about Israel. A ruling on the standards for excluding factions in the Bundestag would not be binding for Berlin state politics, but it would still provide important guidance.