A rule among journalists is to refrain from criticising judges. This is not only because lawyers are particularly trained in argumentation, but also because the interpretation of legal matters is simply too complex for laypeople and keyboard cowboys. However, even an uninformed observer can notice that the Federal Constitutional Court has been lacking the decisiveness of past rulings in its recent decisions. In the past, Karlsruhe liked to present the government with brain teasers, whether in rulings on climate protection or the reallocation of funds for managing the Covid-19 pandemic.

The latest ruling, which essentially guarantees the solidarity surcharge until 2030, falls into a different category. In the current legislative period, the solidarity surcharge will not need to be touched. At most, the reasoning behind the ruling requires some mental gymnastics: three and a half decades after reunification, a „clear disappearance of the additional financial need for the federal government resulting from the accession of the then-new federal states“ is (still) not discernible." The judges did not want to disagree with the relevant expert opinions. Anyone who comes to such an assessment is, whether intentionally or not, actively promoting the division between East and West.

Even if the Karlsruhe ruling was driven by considerations to avoid complicating the formation of the new government with an additional task, it seems unnecessary. There is more than enough money for infrastructure programmes from a previous decision: the judges themselves paved the way for a constitutional amendment that allows for a special fund for infrastructure investments and virtually unlimited defence spending. There are more than enough financial resources for the eastern states as well.

The apparent attempt to make it easier for the new coalition achieves the opposite. Maintaining the remaining solidarity surcharge will likely complicate an agreement on the urgently needed tax reform rather than facilitate it. The SPD is likely to make its future coalition partner pay a high price to abolish the tax on high earners, which is popular among its supporters. Karlsruhe’s broken compass has navigated the coalition partners into more troubled waters. Perhaps the judges should make less of an effort to incorporate political circumstances into their rulings. If politics cannot handle the outcome, it is not the responsibility of the constitutional judges. After all, they wear red robes.