Laura Hering examines the mobilization of constitutional law in Germany and Italy during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. How did state actors, legal scholarship, and the public invoke the constitution and constitutional argument in order to criticize, legitimize, or further develop pandemic measures? The study examines lines of constitutional doctrinal argumentation comparatively as a phenomenon of constitutional culture and undertakes a comparative-law "mapping" of constitutional cultures within European society with regard to their commonality and diversity. The comparative approach proves particularly instructive because both states acted under similar normative and political conditions, yet displayed different responses. This yields a more precise picture of Germany's mobilization of constitutional knowledge while also illuminating constitutional pluralism within the European Union. The author concludes that, although the pandemic placed considerable strain on both constitutional traditions, it did not trigger a constitutional crisis. The comparison also confirms the distinctive character of the German discourse: in Germany, constitutional arguments dominated both public contestation and academic legal debate, the latter being marked by particular intensity. In Italy, by contrast, reliance on the constitution was far more restrained; the debate shifted more strongly into the realm of administrative law. This differing intensity of constitutional mobilization reflects a constitution-cultural peculiarity of Germany.