Poland's Constitutional Court Standoff Deepens as Tusk and Nawrocki Clash Over Judicial Control

President Karol Nawrocki convened urgent consultations at the presidential palace on Saturday after the suspension of Bogdan Swieczkowski, the chief judge of Poland's Constitutional Tribunal. Representatives from nationalist, far-right and some coalition parties attended. Civic Coalition, the party of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, did not.

Nawrocki said the talks addressed a threat to Poland's internal security. The tribunal's official account described the government's action on Friday as a coup d'etat. Tusk, in a televised speech that evening, accused conservative nationalist opposition leaders of seeking to destroy democracy and the rule of law.

Swieczkowski, appointed during the previous Law and Justice government, had been accused of blocking parliament from seating new judges. On Friday, judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska ordered his suspension for a month and assumed temporary charge of the court. Swieczkowski rejected her authority. Nawrocki, a right-wing figure allied with Law and Justice, has previously blocked nominations to the court.

Riot police guarded the tribunal building from Friday afternoon. Several hundred protesters gathered outside demanding Swieczkowski's reinstatement. Nawrocki interrupted a trip to Senegal, turning back mid-flight, and attempted to enter the building. Footage showed pushing at the entrance, with conflicting accounts of who initiated the contact. Police surrounded the premises as the confrontation unfolded on television.

Tusk's government has sought to reform the judiciary after years of Law and Justice rule. It argues that the tribunal's judges lack political neutrality and that Swieczkowski's removal was a necessary, if painful, step to restore the rule of law. The opposition frames the actions as an attempt to seize control of an independent institution. Nawrocki has refused to swear in several judges elected by the current parliamentary majority. Those judges took oaths in parliament instead, but Swieczkowski barred them from hearing cases.

The European Commission stated that the appointment of new members of the Constitutional Tribunal lies within the power of Poland's Sejm. It referenced a European Court of Human Rights ruling from May 2026 that required Polish authorities to refrain from hindering judges appointed by the Sejm in March 2026. Tusk said restoring calm does not mean accepting lawlessness and that the tribunal would function independently and in line with the constitution.

Justice Minister Waldemar Zurek had requested the stripping of immunity from Swieczkowski and his deputy to allow criminal charges. He accused Swieczkowski of treating the institution as a private domain and preventing newly elected judges from working. The crisis follows a longer contest over the composition and authority of the top court. Law and Justice allies have resisted reforms promised by Tusk's coalition after it took office in 2023.

By Saturday afternoon no breakthrough had emerged from Nawrocki's talks. The standoff leaves the tribunal's leadership contested and its ability to issue binding decisions uncertain in the short term. European institutions continue to monitor compliance with rule-of-law conditions tied to funding and membership obligations. Domestic polarization has sharpened, with each side claiming to defend constitutional order against the other.

The confrontation occurs against a backdrop of repeated clashes between the presidency and the government over judicial appointments and the balance of powers. Earlier this year Nawrocki refused to swear in three of six judges nominated by parliament. Swieczkowski, a former deputy justice minister under Law and Justice, declined to seat judges elected by the current majority. The latest suspension and the president's intervention have brought those tensions into open conflict on the streets of Warsaw.

Protesters and police remained near the tribunal premises into the weekend. The outcome will shape how Poland resolves disputes over the legitimacy of its highest constitutional body and the pace of any further reforms. For now, the institutional division remains unresolved, with both the government and the president asserting competing claims to the proper functioning of the court.