Democracy Upheld is a blog dedicated to tracking and analyzing judicial decisions that have successfully challenged executive actions as unconstitutional in the name of democracy. Unlike other resources that catalog broader legal challenges, this blog focuses exclusively on cases where courts—primarily lower federal courts—have struck down executive measures, offering a curated collection of victories for constitutional governance. In addition to reporting these decisions, Democracy Upheld provides my personal commentary on the reasoning of the judges, highlighting the legal principles at stake and the broader implications for democratic institutions.

By distilling these judicial opinions and their significance, Democracy Upheld aims to serve as a resource for legal scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and anyone interested in the role of the judiciary in preserving democratic principles.

Executive Order (EO) or Executive Action (EA)	Decision	Decision Summary	Decision Commentary
EO No. 14,151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, Jan 20, 2025; EO No. 14173 Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, Jan 21, 2025	National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education et al. v. Donald Trump et al. 2025 WL 573764 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025).	Four plaintiffs—NADOHE, AAUP, ROC United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore—filed a lawsuit challenging executive orders they claimed violated their constitutional rights. NADOHE represents diversity professionals in higher education, AAUP is a faculty and academic professionals’ union, ROC United advocates for restaurant workers, and Baltimore is a municipal entity that contracts with and receives grants from the federal government. The lawsuit, filed on February 3, 2025, against President Trump and other officials, alleged violations of the Spending Clause, the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment, and separation of powers. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that specific provisions of the orders unlawfully restrict funding and impose unconstitutional conditions. They filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction on February 13, 2025, which the government opposed. A court hearing on the motion was held on February 19, 2025.	This opinion is particularly compelling, as it not only powerfully explains why the Executive Orders are unconstitutional through the lens of First Amendment and Procedural Due Process protections but also treats the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights with greater deference—effectively lowering the high justiciability bar set by recent Supreme Court decisions, including Spokeo v. Robins, TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, and Murthy v. Missouri. The opinion assigns First Amendment claims a more favorable path to standing compared to other constitutional claims, a distinction that could prove crucial in future litigation.
EA Feb 7, 2025 (“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Special Counsel of the US Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service.”)	Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent 2025 WL 665041 (D.D.C. Mar. 1, 2025).	Special Counsel brought action challenging purported termination of his position by Assistant to the President, and moved for temporary restraining order (TRO). The District Court Judge, Amy Berman Jackson, J., finally held that the Executive order is unconstitutional, emphasizing that the President lacks the authority to override congressional appropriations or refuse to follow statutory mandates simply based on policy objections (p. 23 of the Order). Her opinion holds that the order is unconstitutional, emphasizing that the President lacks the authority to override congressional appropriations or refuse to follow statutory mandates simply based on policy objections. (Id.) The Judge says this outcome “preserves an enduring system of checks and balances that the Founders considered to be essential to the preservation of liberty.” (Id.) The Executive Order was also struck down for violating the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights.	This decision stands out not only for their substantive conclusions but also for their careful engagement with plaintiffs’ claims, rights, and injuries and deep understanding of our constitutional democratic system. It masterfully navigates the constraints imposed by recent Supreme Court justiciability opinions, references them cleverly, while keeping justiciability analysis separate from the remedial analysis—quite an obstacle to overcome in civil rights litigation when judges often conflate the two.