Rüdiger Imgart remains on Bavaria’s Constitutional Court after an internal AfD attempt to remove him over allegations including racist remarks and possible contact with the neo-Nazi NPD failed on procedural grounds.
The case has returned to public view because the party later backed Imgart for a judicial role tied to protecting the constitutional order. It raises a sharper question than whether he was ever formally sanctioned: how thoroughly should political parties examine a candidate’s contested past before supporting him for constitutional office?
The party dispute that changed nothing
Reporting published on 2 November 2026 by Bayerischer Rundfunk, through Tagesschau, examined internal AfD documents relating to Imgart.
They reportedly show that a local AfD organisation sought his expulsion in 2016. The allegations cited in the documents included racist statements, disparaging treatment of particular groups and possible cooperation with the NPD. The records establish that those claims were raised in an internal party proceeding; they do not, by themselves, prove that Imgart made the alleged remarks or worked with the neo-Nazi party. Imgart rejects the accusation that he holds extremist views.
The AfD’s federal arbitration body overturned sanctions against him, citing procedural errors. That ruling did not necessarily settle the substance of the allegations, but it removed the immediate party obstacle to his continued political career. The AfD parliamentary group subsequently nominated Imgart for Bavaria’s Constitutional Court, where he has served since 2018.
That sequence is what gives the affair its institutional weight. An internal organisation considered the allegations serious enough to seek expulsion, yet the wider party later supported the same politician for a post involving constitutional interpretation and the protection of democratic institutions.
A demonstration now part of the scrutiny
The investigation also reported that Imgart attended a demonstration in Berlin in 2020 during which protesters attempted to force their way into the Bundestag. His presence does not establish that he joined the attempted breach or shared the aims of every person at the demonstration. It is, however, another detail in the political record being examined alongside the earlier party proceedings.
Those distinctions matter. Attendance at a protest is not proof of involvement in everything that happens there, just as allegations preserved in party documents are not equivalent to a judicial finding. Imgart has rejected the broader suggestion that he is associated with extremist positions.
Why a constitutional court is different
A judge’s party membership or previous political activity does not automatically prove a lack of independence. Nor does a procedural victory in an internal disciplinary case amount to a positive finding on every disputed fact. But constitutional courts rely on public confidence as well as formal authority. Their members may have to rule on political parties, extremist organisations and the limits of political activity.
That makes the selection process particularly sensitive. When a candidate has faced internal allegations concerning racism, hostility towards population groups or possible links to a neo-Nazi environment, a party’s decision to proceed on procedural grounds can leave the wider suitability question unresolved.
Experts cited in the reporting described the episode as part of the AfD’s broader radicalisation and questioned the criteria used to choose its representatives for public offices connected with the constitutional order. The concern is not simply that Imgart once faced disciplinary action. It is that the collapse of that action on procedural grounds did not prevent the party from advancing him to a role where perceived distance from partisan and extremist politics is central to institutional credibility.
The court appointment was a separate political decision from the AfD arbitration ruling. As a result, the party’s handling of the internal case did not settle whether Imgart was an appropriate choice for constitutional office.
Imgart remains in post and disputes the allegations. The unresolved issue for Bavaria’s Constitutional Court is therefore not a reported judicial determination of his guilt, but whether its appointment safeguards and the conduct of its members can maintain public trust while a judge’s political history remains contested.
