New study examines how courts survive democratic backsliding

Courts are often described as essential safeguards of democracy. But when elected leaders challenge judicial authority, what determines whether courts can withstand those attacks?

A new study published in the Journal of Democracy by PIIRS 2026-27 Postdoctoral Fellow Andrew O’Donohue examines that question, asking why judicial independence sometimes survives even when political leaders attempt to weaken or control the courts. “This is a crucial question for democracies globally,” O’Donohue said. “Because democratic backsliding increasingly occurs through legal maneuvers, one of the first moves anti-democratic leaders make is to capture democracy’s referees: the courts.”

His research challenges the idea that courts can defend themselves against democratic backsliding on their own. Their ability to resist political pressure, he argues, depends in important ways on whether other institutions and groups are willing and able to defend them. “To survive attacks from political leaders, judges depend on judicial allies outside the courts — especially civil society, legislators and international actors,” he says. “This is a reciprocal relationship, in which judicial allies empower the courts to withstand attacks, and the courts, in turn, protect these allies and enable their mobilization.”

O’Donohue’s study draws on cross-national evidence as well as case studies from Brazil, Israel and Poland. Across 25 cases of attempted democratic backsliding, judicial independence was most resilient when opposition parties held power in the legislature — and could thus block efforts to impeach judges or curb the courts.

Brazil provides a striking example. After Jair Bolsonaro became president in 2019, he repeatedly clashed with Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, threatening justices and challenging the authority of the judiciary. Yet the court continued to constrain the executive in part because political allies outside the judiciary helped defend it. Legislators blocked efforts to impeach judges, brought legal challenges against the government, and supported accountability efforts following Bolsonaro’s attempt to overturn the results of an election.

But legislative opposition is not the only source of protection. O’Donohue’s research also finds that civil society mobilization and international pressure can help courts survive, even when political leaders control the legislature. Protest movements, bar associations, nonprofit organizations, and ordinary citizens can play an important role in defending judicial independence. “Civil society mobilization can powerfully protect the judiciary—and create a positive feedback loop, in which protests empower courts to take courageous decisions, which in turn protect and inspire further mobilization,” he said.

The findings have implications well beyond the countries examined in the study. Courts have become increasingly important political institutions around the world, while governments in numerous democracies have sought to reshape or constrain them. Courts have come under attack in diverse countries, from Brazil, India, and Mexico to Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and the United States. O’Donohue’s research is part of his larger book project, which examines a broader question: why courts sometimes defend democracy — and why, in other circumstances, they contribute to its erosion.

The study “How Courts Survive Democratic Backsliding” was published in the Journal of Democracy in October 2026.