The Democracy Index

March 14, 2025

Tracking The Democracy Index in this time of peril is sometimes heartbreaking. We’ve seen attacks on the rule of law, rampant corruption, and other sundry harms to our country. But this week, there are strong, if slim, rays of light peeking through, as democracy notched some important wins in federal courts throughout the country — tipping the Index in a positive direction.

Under tremendous strain, the courts held the line. Federal judges powerfully rejected Trump’s boldly unlawful maneuvers and called out the Administration’s “lies.” They fast-tracked procedures to enable accountability and enforce due process. The district courts utilized their power to repel Trump’s most brazen tactics: misrepresentations, if not outright lies, made in court; attempts to evade proper jurisdiction; and assertions that the president’s authority overrides other considerations, including the Constitution.

It’s important for us to recognize when Trump’s autocratic gambits fail, and remember that he is not invincible; in fact, far from it. So this week we highlight four major victories for democracy.

First, on Thursday, Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California slapped down the White House’s effort to fire scores of federal workers, and ordered a number of agencies — including Treasury and Defense — to reinstate terminated employees. State Democracy Defenders Fund, led by Executive Chair and The Contrarian’s own Norm Eisen successfully represented the terminated probationary federal employees. Alsup rejected the Office of Personnel Management’s argument that it had not “directed” agencies to fire employees, but merely issued “guidance.” And the judge scorched the Administration’s maneuver — determining it was a “sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements,” and that the government knowingly “lie[d]” when it claimed the firings were performance-based. Alsup set his order to take effect immediately, though DOJ has already filed a notice of appeal.

Second, on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Judge Beryl Howell stopped the Trump Administration from enforcing key portions of an Executive Order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, ruling that the Order likely violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The EO seeks, in part, to terminate any government contracts with Perkins Coie and even prevent their attorneys from entering federal buildings (a directive, Howell noted, that would presumably include federal courthouses). This effort to punish lawyers and their clients — borne purely out of the president’s personal pique — strikes at a fundamental American principle: access to counsel and a lawyer’s responsibility to vigorously represent anyone. From John Adams to Clarence Darrow, the law’s most cherished practitioners defended the downtrodden, unpopular, and controversial. As Howell ruled, “The chilling effect of this executive order, 14230, threatens to significantly undermine the integrity of our entire legal system” and “casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession.”

Beyond ruling against the Administration, Howell also lambasted the DOJ’s lawyers with rhetoric judges rarely direct against the federal government. She said that their argument sent “chills down my spine,” and compared Trump to the evil Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland who “yells, ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects…and announces a sentence before a verdict.” “But,” Howell continued, “this cannot be the reality we are living under.”

That is the sound of the judiciary straightening its spine, refusing to be intimidated.

Howell’s strength was met with equal force by the courage of Williams and Connolly, the high-powered Washington, D.C. law firm representing Perkins Coie. This was a dangerous case for any firm to take on — after all, Trump could easily turn his fire against them next. But Williams and Connolly made a subtle yet powerful statement by placing fourteen attorneys’ names on their briefs, far more than typical. While that may not register as noteworthy for the general public, it’s a clear sign within the legal community, and to Trump’s DOJ, that they will not be cowed — one that will hopefully be echoed.

Third, the Trump Administration’s Alice in Wonderland approach to the rule of law — “sentence first, verdict afterwards” — is also playing out in the detention and attempted deportation of the activist Mahmoud Khalil. However one might view Khalil’s opinions and activities, the First Amendment remains a sacrosanct constitutional protection. But Trump and his acolytes revel in trampling free speech and assembly — from encouraging attacks on press freedoms and protections to threatening perceived enemies. The Khalil affair seems to be especially designed to inflame passions. Nevertheless, it represents a stark challenge to the First Amendment.

Judge Jesse Furman’s swift actions allowed Khalil to speak privately with his attorneys for the first time since he was apprehended. The government has produced no evidence substantiating their allegations, nor are they alleging any crimes. Yet Khalil remains in ICE custody in Louisiana. In a sign of fear, the government appears to be moving Khalil around the country in order to prevent SDNY (and Furman) from exercising jurisdiction. DOJ already moved to transfer the case to either New Jersey or Louisiana (which Khalil opposes). It remains to be seen whether that effort will succeed, but Furman already took steps earlier this week to ensure he did not lose initial jurisdiction.

Fourth, back in D.C., Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed the states challenging the constitutionality of DOGE and Elon Musk’s role in the government to obtain expedited discovery in their litigation. The information they receive will be used to support their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction to stop DOGE in its tracks. In The Democracy Index, we have catalogued Musk’s and DOGE’s illegality, callousness, corruption, and damage. Chutkan’s order will enable those abuses to come to light.

These four events constitute substantial victories for the rule of law, accountability, and transparency. Although the power of the courts is inherently limited — many of the rulings are temporary and some will be appealed — these judges used the tools at their disposal to uphold the law, create a clear record, and set an example for their colleagues and all of us. But, as ever, the strength of our democracy ultimately rests with the people — and the stirrings of discontent grow louder each day. The courts are doing their part, we must continue to do ours. We won’t always be able to come to you with good news, but this week, although we are cognisant that there are also dangerous developments in the works, we are happy to have some hopeful rulings to report.

Until next week,

The Democracy Index team