This paper examines pseudolaw and its most prominent adherents, sovereign citizens. It outlines pseudolaw and its origins, sets out common arguments and beliefs, and explores factors for its spread in New South Wales (NSW) and Australia, explaining why pseudolaw can draw in a diverse spectrum of individuals and communities despite consistently failing in courts. While the scale of the phenomenon is difficult to precisely identify, the paper discusses its impacts and ways to respond.​

The 'sovereign citizen' emerged in the United States in the early 1990s. Although this language is prominent in media reporting in Australia, there is ongoing debate about its relevance and accuracy. Increasingly the language of 'pseudolaw adherent' is preferred because it is analytically clearer. Pseudolaw adherents are individuals who believe ordinary laws do not apply to them. Built on a conspiratorial world view, adherents deploy their own interpretation of law to refuse to register their vehicles, obtain drivers licences, pay council rates or recognise the authority of courts. 

Key findings

• The impact of pseudolaw is significant. It escalates disputes, imposes considerable costs on society and adherents themselves and may contribute to declining institutional trust. 
• The scale of the challenge is unclear. The evidence suggests that the number of pseudolaw adherents grew significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Pseudolaw is a commercial enterprise. Promoters and 'gurus' make money selling false hope. 
• No court in the world has accepted a pseudolaw argument. However, repeated failure in court does not mean that pseudolaw offers nothing of value to those who adopt it. 
• Most people turn to pseudolaw when they are facing a problem and need a solution. But it grows because adherents do not trust that political and legal institutions will work for them. Rebuilding social and institutional trust is key to combatting the ideology.