On brave lawyers and jurists – unable to stop fascism

Image of Hans Litten from ‘Shades’ magazine
Introduction;  27 August, 2025.

Recently, in the USA some law courts have rebutted some of the ‘more-than-usual’ Trumpian outrages. In the most recent example one of Trump’s own appointed judges lambasted Trump:

“A federal judge on Tuesday threw out an extraordinary lawsuit that the Trump administration had filed against the entire federal bench in Maryland, challenging a standing order intended to briefly slow down the government’s ability to deport undocumented immigrants.
In a scathing 39-page ruling, the judge, Thomas T. Cullen, called the suit “novel and potentially calamitous,” …
Judge Cullen, who was appointed by President Trump, went out of his way to describe the complaint as extremely unusual…
Moreover, he used the ruling to take Mr. Trump and some of his top aides to task for having repeatedly attacked other judges who have dared to rule against the White House in a flurry of cases challenging aspects of its political agenda…
“Over the past several months, principal officers of the executive (and their spokespersons) have described federal district judges across the country as ‘left-wing,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘activists,’ ‘radical,’ ‘politically minded,’ ‘rogue,’ ‘unhinged,’ ‘outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional, [c]rooked,’ and worse,” Judge Cullen wrote.”
Alan Feuer; “Judge Dismisses Trump Administration Suit Against Federal Bench in Maryland”; New York Times (NYT) Aug. 26, 2025)

Generally, such anti-Trump rulings have come from the lower judiciary. Some of these have shown courage and must be praised, saluted and supported. They have slowed Trump’s fascist onslaughts in some important ways… momentarily.

However, we believe even such significant steps by a few lower court judges, are ultimately bound to be futile in fighting an increasingly fascist government. There are three main reasons to take this view.

Firstly, such lower court rulings are subsequently often over-ruled by a Supreme Court that cravenly follows a pro-Trump line.
(June 30, 2025 “SCOTUS 2025: “Dickensian Ass” or just tied to Trump Executive Orders?“; at MLRG.online June 30 )

Secondly, as Marx and Engels write in ‘German Ideology”, laws of a particular society take root – and become an expression – of the very society that they arose in:

“The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people.”
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels; 4. The Essence of the Materialist Conception of History; In Part I Fuerbach;
Social Being and Social Consciousness]
“The German Ideology,” Frankfurt 1845; cited at: MLRG.online

As such, the law is simply changed or interpreted in order to suit the ruling class’s changing circumstances and requirements as it sees fit. The Supreme Court sees to it that this trick is then rubber-stamped into constitutional bends if needed.

Thirdly, the reality is that only a mass united movement taking place at both the work-places and the community centers and meeting places of where workers live – can stop fascism. Legal battles notwithstanding – this third point is key.

Some of the left still have an illusion that full fascism cannot be imminent in the USA – because there is not a strong workers movement that actually threatens ruling class hegemony. We believe this is a false security (“Does the imposition of fascism always occur as a response to imminent socialist revolution?” 15 August, 2025; at: MLRG.15 August ). These authors are usually Marxists with no illusions about bourgeois law.

However a much larger group of progressives – are still attached to the Democratic Party. They still see this as the agent of change and resistance. But many steps taken by the Democratic Party against fascist creep, merely invoke legal suits. This is not going to succeed in stopping Trump and fascism.

This article discusses two aspects of how a reliance on the law did not prevent the development of fascism in Nazi Germany. There are some legal parallels between Trump’s challenges and those faced by Hitler as he was still locking Germany down into full-blown fascism.

The first is an illustration of this, contained in a short morality and inspirational tale. It highlights the relatively unsung, and brave Hans Achim Litten, who died by suicide after innumerable tortures and beatings in the Dachau concentration camp (1903-1938).
We draw on a well documented book by Benjamin Carter Hett (“Crossing Hitler: The Man Who Put the Nazis on the Witness Stand”; New York Oxford U Press 2008. This book also was the basis of a well made BBC film, providing a documentary of considerable interest (Available at ‘youtube’ “The man who crossed Hitler” at ‘youtube’).

Secondly, this article turns to a broader aspect, to discuss how Hitler turned the judiciary into his puppets.

2. The Courtroom battle waged by Hans Litt against fascism in Germany

Hans Litt in Weimar Germany, was a lawyer whose legal pursuit of military reactionaries and fascists was nothing less than heroic. His first court room battles were for German supporters of the workers Rising in 1921 – on behalf of ‘Red Aid’:

First pro-Proletarian Legal struggles

“The ‘Red Aid’ of Germany (‘Rote Hilfe Deutschlands’) was founded in 1924 as the German chapter of an international organization urged by the new Bolshevik regime in the USSR… The Red Aid’s first leader was Wilhelm Pieck, later president of East Germany, and Communist Reichstag deputy Clara Zetkin. support for its work came from… such as Albert Einstein, the writer Kurt Tucholsky, and the artists Käthe Kollwitz, Heinrich Zille, and Heinrich Mann.’ (For) ‘Red Aid’ Litt represented men imprisoned after the ‘‘Central German Uprising’’ of 1921, arguing for their release under the terms of an amnesty.
Hett, Benjamin Carter. Crossing Hitler: The Man Who Put the Nazis on the Witness Stand, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2008; p. 49-50

Litten was then twenty-five years old and in his first months of legal practice. In this case, he first tested a strategy that he would later use against Adolf Hitler in 1928. That is, he put the accuser into a cross-examination. The test case was to be the sinister Gustav Noske.

Noske had been in 1917 and 1918, a Social Democratic Reichstag deputy. In early 1919 he was the first postwar Social Democratic defense minister. In that role he brutally suppressed the revolts by revolutionary groups, including the left of the Social Democrats, the Communists, and ‘‘Spartacists.’’ Noske said that:

‘‘Someone has to be the bloodhound.”

In July 1928, Ernst Friedrich – the editor-publisher of Black Flag (Schwarze Fahne) reminded worker of this in July 1928. An entire issue of ‘Black Flag’ excoriated Gustav Noske:

“The banner headline was ‘‘Noske: The Murderer Laughs.’’
Noske (sued) Friedrich for libel…
Litt defended Friedrich by summoning Noske himself to confirm ‘‘that in his former capacity as supreme commander and Reich Minister of Defense he committed a number of actions that justify his characterization with the expressions ‘scoundrel’ and ‘villain.’ ’’ Litten’s motion… explained that… through ‘‘the trust of the proletariat,’’ to lobby potentially revolutionary sailors to keep up their faith in Germany’s war effort. Thus Noske, the ‘‘workers’ representative,’’ had helped to prolong the ‘‘slaughter of proletarians, called the ‘World War.’ “
Hett, Benjamin Carter; “Crossing Hitler : The Man Who Put the Nazis on the Witness Stand”, Oxford University Press, 2008; p. 51 -2

While the court ruled Friedrich had indeed committed ‘libel’ – he was only given a mild sentence of a month imprisonment. The case won Litt the hostility of not only Noske, but also the Berlin Lawyers’ Chamber (the bar’s official ruling body).
But this served only as a warm-up in Litten’s career.

The Berlin Police organise against the Workers Mayday 1931

Mayday in Germany had become a great tradition of the working class. Preparations in 1931 for the great worker demonstrations had begun and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and its Red Front (“Rotfrontkämpferbund”) were heavily involved. Adolf Hitler’s forces were then primarily the “Sturmabteilung” (SA):

“The SA was the original paramilitary organisation under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany. It played a significant role in Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and early 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Rot Frontkämpferbund of the Communist Party of Germany and the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and especially Jews.”
Sturmabteilung; at Wikipedia

Already there had been for months a rising series of confrontations between the KPD and the SA storm troopers of Hitler. Meanwhile the bourgeoisie had enabled the “de facto” dictatorship of Heinrich Brüning – putting to an end the erstwhile ‘Weimar Republic”:

“In the spring of 1930, the Weimar Republic, which in the late 1920s had been functioning tolerably well as a parliamentary democracy, had begun to slide into a condition of de facto dictatorship. A group of powerful men, operating behind the scenes but with the ear of Reich President Paul von Hindenburg, came to the conclusion that as a parliamentary democracy shaped by Social Democrats, Germany would never recover its economic strength, shake off the Treaty of Versailles, or reassert itself as the preeminent European power. At the center of this circle was General Kurt von Schleicher, head of the army’s political office, who in the early 1930s became the Iago of German politics, always scheming and whispering in powerful ears (appropriately, the name Schleicher means ‘‘creeper’’). Schleicher engineered the collapse of Chancellor Hermann Müller’s ‘‘Grand Coalition’’ government in the spring of 1930, and Müller’s replacement as chancellor by the far more conservative Heinrich Brüning, who came from the right wing of the Catholic Center Party… Rather than relying on a majority in the Reichstag, Brüning’s administration would be supported by emergency decrees that President Hindenburg could issue under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution.”
Hett, Benjamin Carter. Crossing Hitler Ibid; p.87

By April 1932, the SA and the Red Front of the KPD was banned. However, the fall of the Brüning was imminent, and the Hitlerite party was gaining momentum. Brüning resigned in May 1932. This is not the place to discuss in further detail of the slide then into a fascist government. We briefly discuss its consolidation with the Nazi provocation of the Reichstag Fire in 1933 below.

We return to May Day 1931 during a move towards fascism. In this climate, the Berlin police chief – Karl Zörgiebel – resolved to deny any workers marches for May Day 1931:

“The office of Berlin police chief, in 1929 was held by the Social Democrat Karl Zörgiebel. Since 1889, May 1 had been the day for workers’ demonstrations … Zörgiebel proclaimed, demonstrations would constitute an ‘‘immediate danger to public security.’’ A prohibition of all open-air demonstrations had been in force in Berlin since December 1928. Zörgiebel … did not provide an exemption from the ban for workers’ marches on May 1…”
Hett, Benjamin Carter; “Crossing Hitler: The Man Who Put the Nazis on the Witness Stand, Oxford University Press, 2008; p. 54

A notorious incident had already occurred on November 22, 1930, which began a “spree” of violence against communist workers:

“The Eden Dance Palace attack launched a three-month spree of SA violence in Charlottenburg. In the small hours of January 1, 1931, men from Storm 33 attacked and seriously wounded the brothers Erich and Robert Riemenschneider. Later that month, in a brawl outside Reisig’s Tavern, men from the Storm 33 stabbed to death a worker named Max Schirmer; and on February 2 they stabbed and then shot to death one Otto Grüneberg. The left-wing press began referring to the unit as ‘‘Murder Storm 33.’’ For most of 1930 and 1931 the leader of Storm 33 was Fritz Hahn.”
Hett, Benjamin Carter. Crossing Hitler”; Ibid; p. 80

Thus the KPD determined to take a major stand against the SA May Day 1931. But through informers, police officials became well aware of the Communist Party’s decisions regarding Berlin. A KPD memo of March 30 had found its way into a police file and noted the ‘‘particular significance’’ of May 1. The memo went on to ask district committees to report on plans for all ‘‘factories, unions, and mass organizations’’ in their districts.

The Berlin police also knew of a resolution from the Central Committee of the KPD on ‘‘Guidelines for the May 1 Campaign.” This spoke of plans for the ‘‘breach of the prohibitions of the bourgeois state,’’ aiming to give May 1 ‘‘the character of a revolutionary proletarian fighting demonstration”.

Consequently the police plans to disrupt the May demonstrations rolled out,in a brutal attack by the police:

“On May 1 the police went out in force to the working-class districts of Wedding and Neukölln. When some inhabitants gathered in small groups, the police intervened with grossly disproportionate force… Firing blindly into crowds and even buildings, the police killed thirty-three people and wounded over a hundred more, many of them bystanders.’’
Hett, Benjamin Carter. Ibid; p.55-57

Next day Litten – while being beaten himself – took down written, signed statements names from those in the protest demonstrations. Litten used these materials in launching a case against Hitler and some named storm troopers. Litten managed to get the courts to allow him to cross-examine Hitler as a witness:

“Friday May 31 1931:
“of the witness Hitler … the court had acted on Hans Litten’s request and formally summoned the leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to testify at the Eden Dance Palace trial, the trial of Konrad Hermann Stief and three other Nazi storm troopers for attempted murder.”
Hett, Benjamin Carter; “Crossing Hitler” Ibid; p. 65

The police were less than vigilant about the accused, who were allowed to escape:

“On July 11 the state prosecutor’s office charged Hahn and four other members of Storm 33 with taking part in the ‘‘public formation of a mob, which with its combined strength commits acts of violence against persons’’- the language of paragraph 125 of the German Criminal Code. Prosecutors deemed (Fritz -ed) Hahn the ‘‘ringleader,’’ which involved a higher penalty… (The police -ed) did not attempt to rearrest Hahn, however, and by the time the case came to trial Hahn had vanished. This contrast between the savagery of Storm 33’s tactics and the indulgence with which official Berlin seemed to treat the group formed an essential part of the background to Hitler’s appearance.”
Hett, Benjamin Carter. “Crossing”; Ibid.p.81

Litten’s intention was to expose Hitler and the SA as jointly launching a violent terror campaign against any of Hitler’s enemies. At this stage Hitler and the Nazi Party were posing as purely legal-based politicians. On 8 May 1931, Hitler had to undergo a 3-hour cross-examination from Litten. This was halted by the judge – but was reported widely.

Already in September 1930, Hitler had been a witness at Leipzig during the “Ulm Reichswehr Trial”. This had charged two officers of the Reichswehr (the German army) for treason as being members of the Nazi Party – which was illegal for Reichswehr officers. At that trial, Hitler had insisted that the Nazi party only used legal methods and that the SA was an “an organization of ‘intellectual enlightenment’” (Wikipedia at Hans Litten).

“For now I do not want to cast doubt on the honesty of your oath in Leipzig,’’ said Litten, ‘‘but I am asking, does your struggle for power involve only the struggle against the state as it now exists, or does it also involve the struggle against the organizations of the working class that are opposed to you?’’ ‘‘What does the struggle for power consist of?’’ Hitler began rhetorically. ‘‘It consists of defeating parties opposed to us. And of the struggle for the great masses. So if we use legal methods in the struggle…“
Hett, Benjamin Carter. CrossingHitler; Ibid; p.91

But Litten did not get “deflected” – and moved to Hitler’s appointee Goebbels whose more open calls for violence were well known:

‘‘You didn’t discipline or expel Goebbels, but instead made him Reich Propaganda Director,’’ he pointed out. ‘‘Mustn’t Goebbels’ example rouse the idea in the Party that the program of legality hasn’t gotten very far?’’ According to the account in Voss’s News, Hitler began to stutter appeared to ‘‘search convulsively for an answer’’ that would cover without too obviously abandoning Goebbels. He could only repeat the Party operated legally and that this applied to Goebbels as well. …
Pressing the point, Litten asked if Goebbels had been forbidden to disseminate his pamphlet. ‘‘I don’t know.’’
‘‘And are you aware,’’ Litten continued, ‘‘that numerous SA men and Party members, especially in northern Germany, hold to Goebbels’ program of illegality?’’ ‘
‘If that were the case,’’ said Hitler, ‘‘these people would have left me a month ago. Because a month ago they were all asked if they were in agreement with the course of one hundred percent legality. The result was overwhelming.’’
Ohnesorge (the judge – Ed) … asked Litten’s third question: ‘‘Did you promise Reich Chancellor Brüning to dissolve the SA in the event of your joining the administration?’’ According to one account, Ohnesorge helpfully explained to Hitler the drift of Litten’s question: it would suggest, he told Hitler, ‘‘that you yourself saw the SA as something illegal.’’ According to the reports, Hitler was now ‘‘extraordinarily excited,’’ and it is easy to see why…’’
Hett, Benjamin Carter. Crossing Hitler”; Ibid; p.94

While Litten exposed Hitler, it did not deter the Nazi Party or its backers. The 1933 election narrowly placed Hitler in power, and shortly thereafter came the 28 February 1933 Nazi frame-up of the Reichstag Fire.

That night, Litten was placed into “protective custody” – and then thereafter into a number of concentration camps. Despite constant and repetitive beatings and tortures, he kept up his spirits. On one occasion of Hitler’s birthday, the guards forced the prisoners to give Hitler a ‘present’. Litten recited the poem “Die Gedanken Sind Frei” (“Thoughts are free”) (See at end of this piece).

Finally, after transfer to the Dachau concentration camp, the brutal attacks on him got even worse. After 5 years – he committed suicide by hanging himself in February 1938.

2. The systemic stifling of the German Judiciary

The Reichstag Fire

We have discussed elsewhere the role the Reichstag Fire played in making Georgi Dimitrov a leader of the Communist International, in an article by Bland in 1994 (Compass Mar. 1994 No. 112; Communist League; “Georgi Dimitrov: Tool Of Imperialism” ).

Here we discuss the role it played to justify the Nazi clampdown on the left – both Communists, social-democrats and progressives. But it is first necessary to remind ourselves that the fire was set by the Nazis and was used as a justification to arrest communists and supress newspapers:

“On 27 February 1933 – a few days before elections were due – a fire severely damaged the building of the German Parliament in Berlin – the Reichstag:
“Smoke and flames were seen from the windows of the Reichstag, in the heart of Berlin … at about 9.15 p.m. The fire brigade was there by 9.25. The main hall was already a roaring cauldron…
A Dutch half-wit named Marinus Van der Lubbe was arrested when police found him in the burning ruins.”
(John Gunther: ‘Inside Europe’; London; 1936; p. 58, 59).

“The Reichstag building was set on fire in 20 places.”
(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives;’, Volume 1; p. 690).

Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels were quick to arrive at the scene and attributed the fire to ‘arson by Communists’:

“Chancellor Hitler, Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister without Portfolio, and Hermann Goering, Minister of the Interior and Speaker of the Reichstag, quickly arrived on the scene and attributed the outrage to the Communists”.
(‘New York Times’, 17 September 1933, Section 9; p. 3).

At once,

“… orders were issued for the arrest of all Communist members of the Reichstag. The entire Socialist press throughout Prussia was immediately suppressed”.
(‘New York Times’, 17 September 1933, Section 9; p. 3).

On the day following the fire, 28 February 1933, Hitler exploited the situation by prevailing upon the aged President Hindenburg

“to sign a decree ‘For the Protection of the People and the State’ suspending seven sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and personal liberties.”
(William L.Shirer: ‘The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich’; London; 1971; p.243)…

… and by election day, 5 March 1933,

“practically all of the leaders of the Communist Party, including … Ernst Thaelmann, the Party’s chief in Germany, were under arrest, either in prison or concentration camps)”.
(‘New York Times’, 17 September 1933, Section 9; p. 3).

As we put this previously, it was a frame-up and the true arsonists were the Nazis:

“The International Committee for Aid to Victims of Nazi Fascists, headed by Albert Einstein, organised an international commission of jurists to investigate the Reichstag Fire. It met in London under the chairmanship of Dennis Pritt. Its report… concluded that the real arsonists were most likely to have been the leaders of the Nazi Party, who wished to find a pretext for the repression of rival parties — in particular the Communist Party…
The Commission’s findings were abundantly confirmed in 1946 at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Hans Gisevius, an official in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior at the time, gave evidence:
“Hitler in a general way had expressed a wish for a large-scale propaganda campaign. Goebbels undertook to prepare the necessary proposals and it was Goebbels who first thought of setting the Reichstag on fire. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA Brigade, Karl Ernst, and he suggested in detail how it should be done.
A certain chemical… was chosen. After spraying, it ignites after a certain time – hours of minutes. In order to get inside the Reichstag, one had to go through the corridor leading from the palace of the Reichstag President (Goering – Ed.) to the Reichstag itself. Ten reliable SA men were provided, and then Goering was informed of all details of the plan”.
(‘Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Tribunal’, Volume 12; Nuremberg; 1947; p. 252).

And General Franz Halder, who had been Hitler’s Chief of the General Staff in 1939-42, testified in an affidavit:

“On the occasion of a luncheon on the Fuehrer’s birthday in 1942, people around the Fuehrer turned the conversation to the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears how Goering broke into the conversation and stated: ‘The only one who really knows the Reichstag is I, for I set fire to it’. And saying this, he slapped his thigh”.
(‘Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Tribunal’, Volume 9; Nuremberg; 1947; p. 435).

The Nazi legal apparatus began to be constructed immediately after the Reichstag Fire

We now look further at the effects on the legal apparatus erected after the Reichstag Fire:

“It supplied the rationale for the enactment of two decrees the following day which extended the scope of political crimes and sanctions for high treason in Germany.
The first of these was the Decree of the President against Treason and High Treasonous Activities (Die Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten gegen Verrat am Deutschen Volke und hochverräterische Umtriebe) of 28 February 1933, which aimed to neutralise political opponents of the state, especially the Communist Party of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands or KPD). The concept of subversive high treason (Zersetzungshochverrat) was introduced and defined as applying to all ‘acts of political subversion, which obstructed the police and army from fulfilling their duty to protect the state’ … Under Article 6, the manufacture, distribution and storing of subversive writings were also, for the first time, included as acts of high treason.
Article 1 of the other decree promulgated on the same degree, the Decree of the President for the Protection of People and State (Die Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat), commonly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, extended the possibility of capital punishment to all high treasonous offences, including those which had previously carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment …
The complete political ascendancy of the Nazi Party was further tightened 5 months later when the Law against the Reestablishment of Parties (Das Gesetz gegen die Neubildung von Parteien) recognised the Nazi Party as the sole legitimate political party in Germany. “
Geerling, W., Magee, G. (2017). Crimes and Punishments. In: Quantifying Resistance. Studies in Economic History. Springer, Singapore. Chapter 6.1 p.131-2;

The trial of five defendants including a clear dupe – Marinus van der Lubbe – received international visibility. However the case against four communists including Dimitrov, were dismissed “for lack of evidence”. This was an “embarassment”:

“Accordingly, the Reichstag fire trial was conducted before the Supreme Court from September through December 1933. On 23 December 1933, its verdict was handed down. While the main defendant, Marinus van der Lubbe, was sentenced to death, the cases against the trial’s other four defendants were dismissed due to lack of evidence (Wagner 1974, pp. 14–15).
The acquittal of four defendants in a trial that had attracted worldwide attention was an embarrassment to the regime, particularly given that this crime had been used as proof of a grand communist conspiracy and the pretext for the Reichstag Fire Decree. Hitler later described the verdict as ‘laughable’ (lächerlich) and the judges as ‘senile’ (vertrottelt).”
Geerling, W., Magee, G. (2017). Crimes and Punishments. In: Quantifying Resistance. Studies in Economic History. Springer, Singapore. Chapter 6.1 p.132-3;

By March 1934, the plans for a new decree that would form a so-called “Peoples Court” – to enact Nazi judgements was laid in the Nazi Cabinet:

“In a cabinet meeting of 23 March 1934, Adolf Hitler, Ernst Röhm, Hermann Göring, Franz Gürtner, Wilhelm Frick, Minister of Defence Werner von Blomberg and State Secretary Hans Pfundtner discussed the establishment of a special People’s Court to pass judgement on cases of high treason and treason. It was agreed at this time that the court would consist of two professional judges and three lay judges. Gürtner was instructed to draw up the decree.
On 24 April 1934, that decree, the Law Amending Provisions of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure (Das Gesetz zur Änderung von Vorschriften des Strafrechts und des Strafverfahrens), formally created the People’s Court and transferred jurisdiction of high treason and treason to it from the Supreme Court.“
Geerling, W., Magee, G. (2017). Crimes and Punishments. In: Quantifying Resistance. Studies in Economic History. Springer, Singapore. Chapter 6.1 p.131-2;

This was to be an explicitly “essential part of National Socialism”:

“According to Wilhelm Weiß, lay member of the People’s Court and later Chief Editor of the ‘Völkischer Beobachter’, the purpose of the new court was to form an institution which ‘portrayed an essential part of the National Socialist jurisdiction, an organic creation of the National Socialist state, since the assessors formed a close personal relationship with the Party which did not exist in any other German court’.
Geerling, W., Magee, G. (2017). Crimes and Punishments. In: Quantifying Resistance. Studies in Economic History. Springer, Singapore. Chapter 6.1 p.131-166

Any defendants appearing before the People’s Court had to have counsel, who could only be appointed after approval from the presiding judge. As a leading Nazi adviser put it “care would be taken” in the approval:

“Hans Richter, Ministerial Adviser in the Ministry of Justice, … in an article published in Deutsche Justiz on the day when the People’s Court was first enacted: ‘In cases where the state entrusts the highest court on account of their importance for the general public, care should be taken that only defence counsels who enjoy general trust be involved’.
Geerling, W., Magee, G. (2017). Crimes and Punishments. In: Quantifying Resistance. Studies in Economic History. Springer, Singapore. Chapter 6.1 p.131-166

However, even then, there remained the odd recalcitrant judge in the lower judicial ranks.

“The most famous oppositional German judge, Lothar Kreyssig, in 1933 (was -ed) alert to the conflicts that would confront him in the line of duty. Soon after, the Jews of his town Chemnitz were arrested and placed in a detention center near the courthouse. The court was told to open proceedings against the prisoners … Kreyssig immediately approached the warden of the center to ensure that the detainees were not ill-treated, . . After looking into each case, he found that all the complaints were groundless, and he released all the prisoners. At that time, many other judges of Germany acted differently, regarding the detention of Jews as something inevitable.”
Hans Petter Graver; “Why Adolf Hitler Spared the Judges”; Ibid; 2018; German Law Journal.

Even as late as November 1941 a brave judge – Dr. Willi Seidel – was able to delay the Nazis for a period of time – over holding back rations to Jews:

“Dr. Willi Seidel, a judge of one of Berlin’s county courts, was confronted with an unusual case. Five hundred Jews brought claims against the city’s food authorities. After the announcement of extra coffee rations, Berlin citizens had gone to their local grocers to collect their coffee. Among these were thousands of Berlin’s Jewish population. The food authorities saw the Jews’ conduct as an offense against the distribution regulations and accordingly imposed fines on six thousand Jews. Seidel wrote a twenty-page ruling where he came to the conclusion that the Jews had not committed a punishable act. The contrary interpretation on the part of the food authorities was absolutely incompatible with the established facts. Notably, the food authorities had “overlooked” various factors. In his ruling, Seidel characterized the legal view of the authorities as “untenable,” “fabricated,” and “abstruse.” The ruling was a slap in the face of the Nazi authorities…
In the opinion of the Ministry, the legal reasoning of Seidel was obviously doubtful, because “the fact that Jews were not entitled to a supply of genuine coffee was self-evident even if it was not specially mentioned in the official decree.”
Hans Petter Graver; “Why Adolf Hitler Spared the Judges”; Ibid; 2018; German Law Journal.

However, these were rare and isolated instances. Already, the law and judiciary had been suborned. Yet it was in fact not until 1942 – in the middle of World War Two – that Hitler made a speech in which he finally demanded that judges “understand the demand of the hour”:

“Hitler addressed the judiciary in a speech in the Reichstag on April 26, 1942. Among other things, Hitler said:
“I expect the German legal profession to understand that the nation is not here for them but they are here for the nation… From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.’”
Hans Petter Graver; “Why Adolf Hitler Spared the Judges: Judicial Opposition Against the Nazi State”; 2018; German Law Journal, 19(4), 845-878.

At the post-war Nuremberg trial of the Nazis, the view was expressed that this marked the end of “an independent judiciary”:

“In the opinion of the US Military Tribunal, this speech changed the position of the German judiciary and formed the basis for the situation described by the Tribunal where one could no longer speak of an independent judiciary in any meaningful sense. “
Graver, Hans Petter (2015). Chapter: “Repression of the Judiciary”; in: Judges Against Justice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. p.35-52.

Conclusions

The “law” in bourgeois society is too weak and completely inadequate as a sole bulwark against the wishes of the ruling class, when it decides to impose fascism.

Trump has declared himself already – a dictator:

“In case there was any mystery about President Donald Trump’s methods for obtaining vast new powers, he more or less copped to the whole strategy Tuesday.
“The line is that I’m a dictator, but I stop crime,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting, referring to his moves to send troops into major American cities. “So a lot of people say, ‘You know, if that’s the case, I’d rather have a dictator.’”
Aaron Blake; “Trump’s new ‘dictator’ comment betrays his trick for expanding his power”; August 26, 2025; at CNN  

It is long past relying on purely law – that the working class can be assured no fascism is imposed.

The following are two verses from the poem that Hans Litten recited – as he was forced to ‘honour’ Hitler’s birthday. It is said the guards did not understand the poem. It allowed Litten some dignity.

However – If we wish to be really free – not just in a solitary mental state of resilience – we must organise an effective anti-fascist united front.
We honour, recall and respect Hans Litten – but look where the lack of a United Anti-Fascist Front  left him and so many other anti-fascists and their class.

Die Gedanken sind frei,
wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliehen vorbei
wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen,
kein Jäger erschießen,
es bleibet dabei:
die Gedanken sind frei.

(Thoughts are free,
who can guess them,
they fly by
like night shadows.
No one can know them,
no hunter can shoot them,
it remains this:
thoughts are free.)

2. Ich denke, was ich will,
und was mich beglücket,
doch alles in der Still,
und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren
kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei:
die Gedanken sind frei.

(I think what I want,
and what makes me happy,
but all in silence,
and as is fitting.
No one can deny my wishes and desires,
it remains the same:
thoughts are free)

The remaining verses can be found at: wikipedia