Polish president in physical confrontation with judges amid power struggle at constitutional court

President Karol Nawrocki entered Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal during a late-night confrontation. Video showed him pushing past judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, who was leading an attempt to take control of the court. He later argued with judges and said they were not legitimate Tribunal judges.

The dispute began when eight judges chosen by parliament this year entered the building. Korwin-Piotrowska then suspended chief justice Bogdan Świeczkowski and declared herself acting head. Police guarded the court, while protesters and opposition politicians called the takeover a “coup d’état.”

Security forces became involved as supporters tried to help Świeczkowski enter the grounds. Police stopped him after supporters cut through the fence with a power tool. Nawrocki left around 5 a.m., called the events a forceful takeover, and announced meetings with political leaders.

Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, or TK, is the country’s constitutional court. In general, such a court checks whether laws and official actions comply with the constitution. That gives constitutional rules practical force and provides a legal check on elected institutions. The article does not detail every TK power, but it identifies the Tribunal as a constitutional body.

The court has a 15-person bench. Parliament chooses its judges, but Polish law requires them to swear an oath “before the president.” The dispute began when President Nawrocki refused to swear in five of eight judges chosen by parliament this year. Those judges held ceremonies in parliament instead.

The Tribunal’s authority is now contested. Chief justice Bogdan Świeczkowski refused to accept the five judges, while the government has refused to recognise the court’s legitimacy and ignored its rulings. The court’s decisions therefore face a serious political challenge.

The Constitutional Tribunal has a 15-person bench. That figure matters because control of a constitutional court can depend on who occupies its seats and whether those appointments are accepted. The current dispute concerns vacancies and competing claims about which judges legally belong on the court.

Parliament chose eight new judges this year after the governing coalition began filling vacancies in March. In theory, those nominees now form a majority on the 15-person Tribunal. However, President Nawrocki refused to swear in five of the eight, including Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz and Maciej Berek.

The five judges organised their own oath ceremonies in parliament and submitted the oaths to the president’s office. Chief justice Bogdan Świeczkowski refused to accept them as Tribunal members. Therefore, the article presents two competing realities: parliamentary appointments support one group, while the president and existing leadership reject five appointments.

The government and president disagree because they recognise different sources of legal legitimacy. Tusk’s coalition says the existing Tribunal was compromised by three unlawfully appointed judges and an illegitimate chief justice. Nawrocki, aligned with PiS, rejects the new judges whom parliament selected but he has not sworn in.

Polish law creates the immediate mechanism for the dispute. Parliament chooses new Tribunal judges, but they must swear an oath “before the president.” Nawrocki refused to swear in five judges. They instead took oaths in parliament and sent them to the president’s office. Chief justice Bogdan Świeczkowski refused to accept them.

The result is a direct institutional standoff. The government treats the five as judges and supports their attempt to take control. Nawrocki and Świeczkowski treat them as unauthorised. That disagreement produced the attempted leadership change, the confrontation at the court and competing claims about constitutional authority.

The article does not spell out specific future legal consequences. In general, when a government and president refuse to recognise a constitutional court’s authority, constitutional review becomes uncertain. Laws may face competing claims about whether they were properly examined, and citizens or institutions may not know which rulings to follow.

Poland already shows this mechanism. Tusk’s government has ignored the Tribunal’s rulings because it rejects the court’s legitimacy. At the same time, Nawrocki and chief justice Bogdan Świeczkowski reject five judges chosen by parliament. Each side can therefore challenge the other side’s decisions and appointments.

If the conflict continues, the Tribunal could operate with disputed judges and contested leadership. The government and president may keep treating different rulings as valid. That would make constitutional checks less predictable and could prolong the institutional crisis. The article confirms the conflict is ongoing but does not identify a final legal settlement.

The long-running crisis began with changes made under the former national-conservative Law and Justice, or PiS, government. The current government says three Tribunal judges were unlawfully appointed during that period. It also considers chief justice Bogdan Świeczkowski illegitimate because he previously served in the former PiS government.

Those disputed appointments affected who was accepted as a legitimate judge and who controlled the court. After taking power in 2023, Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s coalition refused to recognise the Tribunal’s legitimacy. It ignored the court’s rulings and initially refused to nominate replacements for vacancies on the 15-person bench.

The conflict intensified when the coalition began filling vacancies this March. Parliament selected eight judges, but Nawrocki refused to swear in five. The new judges held their own ceremonies, and Święczkowski rejected them. That unresolved history led directly to the attempted takeover and confrontation.

Elected politicians make laws, but democracy also depends on rules that bind those politicians. In general, constitutional courts test laws against the constitution, while independent judges apply legal standards without taking instructions from political leaders. This separation helps protect constitutional limits and makes government power more accountable.

Poland’s crisis shows why independence matters. The current government says three judges appointed under the former PiS government were unlawful and that the court was brought under political control. It therefore rejects the Tribunal’s legitimacy and has ignored its rulings. Nawrocki, aligned with PiS, rejects five newer judges chosen by parliament.

When both sides dispute the court’s membership, constitutional review becomes harder to trust. A court may issue rulings that one political camp accepts and another rejects. The article shows this is not an abstract concern: police now surround the Tribunal, rival judges claim authority, and the president is calling political leaders together.