Abstract
Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic triggered a profound constitutional stress test for liberal democracies, exposing the fragility of traditional doctrines governing legislative delegation. Drawing on doctrinal and judicial responses in Germany, the USA, and the UK, this article interrogates how existing constitutional limits failed to constrain the expansion of executive power under emergency conditions. Through comparative analysis of landmark decisions—including Germany’s Bundesnotbremse, the US Supreme Court’s ‘major questions’ doctrine, and UK judicial review of lockdown powers—this study argues for a reconceptualization of delegation doctrines. The article proposes a theory of ‘emergency constitutionalism’ that integrates temporal exigency, scientific expertise, and proportionality within a framework of democratic accountability.