“Are You Even Authorized to Be a Judge?”

“Are You Even Authorized to Be a Judge?” How Dutch Judges Deal with Sovereign Citizen Argumentation in Court If a party states during a hearing that the law does not apply to him or her, or that the Dutch state is an illegitimate corporation, what responses does this elicit from a judge? This exploratory courtroom observation study analysed what interactional approaches Dutch judges made use of during court proceedings, when presiding over cases in which sovereign citizen argumentation is used. This study shows that sovereign citizen argumentation is used in various ways, and Dutch judges made use of differing interactional strategies towards this argumentation. When the argumentation was posed merely declaratively, judges made use of an ‘ignoring’ approach, continuing the proceedings as if such argumentation was not posed. When the argumentation took on a more disruptive nature, judges responded either by ‘neutralizing’ the argumentation or by ‘adapting’ the proceedings. I highlighted two ‘adapting’ approaches: circumvention and toleration. Notably, judges never directly debunked sovereign citizen argumentation during the hearings. The varying interactional approaches that were observed invite further reflection on if and how procedural justice can be ensured to parties adhering to sovereign citizen argumentation, as well as further research on their perspectives of their encounters with the Dutch judiciary.