Because democratic backsliding increasingly occurs through legal means, courts are central actors. Elected political leaders have clashed with the judiciary in numerous cases of democratic erosion—from Brazil, Israel, and Mexico to Hungary, India, Poland, Turkey, and the United States. Conventional wisdom holds that when courts are independent of the elected government, they act as “bulwarks” against democratic backsliding. Alexander Hamilton, a key architect of the U.S. Constitution, wrote that the judiciary is “an excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions” of elected politicians. Building on this long intellectual tradition, scholars lionize independent judiciaries as “defenders of democracy.”

While the judiciary is widely assumed to defend democracy, this essay argues that courts frequently undermine democracy instead. When courts are dependent on the elected government, they often damage democracy by enabling executive power grabs. But even when courts are independent of the elected government, meaning that they are able to make decisions free from government influence, judiciaries globally have engaged in diverse types of antidemocratic behavior. Judges have subverted free and fair elections, restricted citizens’ rights, excessively limited elected officials’ power to govern, and even legitimized military coups. Surprisingly, courts can endanger democracy not only by enabling executives but also by aggressively fighting them.