In recent years, courts around the world have played an increasingly pivotal role in defending democracy and preserving civil liberties. From overturning unjust laws to holding powerful political actors accountable, judiciaries serve as critical checks on abuse of power.
However, rising threats such as authoritarianism, political pressure, and attacks on judicial neutrality also test their strength. This article explores how courts uphold democracy and civil rights, with the most up-to-date facts, figures, and case studies.
What Does It Mean for Courts to Uphold Democracy & Civil Liberties?
- Judicial Independence: Courts free from undue influence by the executive or legislative branches.
- Rule of Law: Laws are applied equally; no one is above the law.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: Freedom of speech, due process, equality, free and fair elections, freedom of association, etc.
- Checks & Balances: Courts check the other branches of government, ensuring that rights violations or democratic overreach are remedied.
Global Trends: Challenges & Progress
| Trend | What Is Happening | Implications for Democracy / Civil Liberties |
|---|---|---|
| Worsening global freedom | In 2024, 60 countries saw a deterioration in political rights and civil liberties; only 34 saw improvements. | Indicates that democratic backsliding is more common than recovery. Citizens in many places are losing protections. |
| Press freedom decline | The Global State of Democracy Report shows press freedom fell sharply in a quarter of 174 countries assessed. | Limits on media reduce government accountability and public awareness. |
| Judicial interference in Europe | Countries like Italy, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia are accused of undermining rule of law via political interference, press intimidation, weakening judiciary. | When the judiciary is compromised, democratic safeguards weaken. |
| Legal victories for rights | Some courts have acted decisively in favor of civil liberties (cases detailed below). | These show that judiciaries can act as defenders even in challenging environments. |
Key Recent Cases & Examples
Here are several illustrative cases from 2024-2025 demonstrating how courts have upheld democracy and civil rights.
| Case / Country | What Happened | Significance for Democracy / Civil Liberties |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil – Bolsonaro convicted | The Supreme Court found former President Jair Bolsonaro guilty of plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election; convicted of multiple charges, sentenced to ~27 years. | The court enforced accountability at the highest level and reinforced that electoral defeat must be respected; sends strong signal against attempts to subvert democracy. |
| Hong Kong – Tiananmen vigil convictions overturned | Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal unanimously quashed the convictions of three pro-democracy activists who organized Tiananmen vigils, citing that prosecutors had redacted key evidence and violated fair trial rights. | Rare win for civil society in an environment with strong constraints; affirming right to free expression and fair trial. |
| USA – Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for internet pornography websites, ruling law survived “intermediate scrutiny.” | Balances protection of minors with free speech; shows how courts assess limits to rights with established standards like scrutiny levels. |
| USA – Challenges to executive overreach | The ACLU has filed dozens of cases (53 in a short span) against the administration’s alleged overreach. In many of these, courts have granted relief or preliminary/protective orders. | Demonstrates role of courts in checking executive power, protecting civil liberties (immigration rights, protests, etc.). |
| Mexico – Judicial elections 2025 | First time Mexican federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) were elected by popular vote on June 1, 2025. However turnout was very low (~13%) and invalid/blank ballots were high (over 20% in some races). | This case raises questions about democratic legitimacy and awareness; selecting judges by vote may increase legitimacy if implemented well, but poor participation can undercut it. |
How Courts Uphold Civil Liberties: Mechanisms
- Judicial Review: Courts have the power to deem legislation or executive actions unconstitutional or unlawful.
- Overturning Wrongful Convictions or Miscarriages of Justice: Ensuring fair trials and procedural justice. Hong Kong example above is one.
- Protection of Free Speech / Media & Press Rights: Through rulings that defend expression and impose limits on censorship.
- Ensuring Fair Elections & Respect for Vote Results: Courts serving as arbiters in election disputes; must ensure free, fair, and credible electoral process.
- Limiting Executive Overreach & Abuse of Power: Through injunctions, rulings that block or curtail excessive powers or unconstitutional behaviour.
- Safeguarding Minority Rights: Includes rights for minorities, marginalized communities, religious freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, etc.
Obstacles & Threats Faced by Courts
- Political pressure or interference: Executives attempting to influence judicial appointments or intimidate judges.
- Erosion of judicial neutrality: When judges are seen or used as partisan actors, undermining trust.
- Decline in democratic norms: Disinformation, polarization, influence of money in politics that strains juridical oversight.
- Backlash and legal restrictions: Governments passing laws to restrict freedoms, reduce judicial oversight.
- Low public participation / legitimacy issues: E.g. low voter turnout in judicial elections (Mexico) or public distrust.
Statistics & Figures
- Number of countries with deterioration in political rights / civil liberties in 2024: 60; improvements only in 34.
- Global press freedom decline in 2025: Sharpest fall in about 50 years; in ¼ of assessed countries.
- Mexican judicial election turnout: ~13% of eligible voters.
- Invalid/blank ballots rate in some Mexican judicial races: above 20%.
- Number of lawsuits filed by ACLU against US executive branch in early second term: 53; preliminary/temporary relief won in 27 of those.
Case Study: Brazil’s Supreme Court & Democracy
Brazil provides a striking example of courts upholding democracy. After the 2022 elections, the country saw attempts by former President Bolsonaro and his supporters to undermine democratic institutions.
The Supreme Court not only held him accountable for plotting a coup, but also convicted allied military officers – unprecedented in modern Brazilian history.
The sentence, around 27 years, reflects the court’s firm stand against anti-democratic efforts. This marks a powerful instance of judicial enforcement of constitutional democratic norms.
Comparative Perspectives
- United States: Courts are busy with cases over free speech, immigration, LGBTQ rights, voting rights—all areas where civil liberties are contested. The judiciary’s impartiality and role as a check are under pressure, especially with concerns about executive overreach.
- Hong Kong / China context: Sparse victories like overturning convictions in pro-democracy cases show the judiciary can still assert due process, but overall environment remains restrictive.
- Europe: In many EU and non-EU countries, pressure on judicial independence, media suppression, interference are emerging, causing “democratic recession” in certain states.
What Needs to Be Done: Strengthening Courts & Safeguards
- Reinforce judicial independence through transparent, merit-based appointments; secure tenure.
- Ensure access to justice: reduce delays, backlog, ensure fair representation.
- Guarantee transparent court proceedings; open trials; proper evidence disclosure.
- Support civil society, media, free press as co-guardians of democracy.
- Legally enshrine protections for fundamental rights (speech, assembly, religion, minority rights).
- International monitoring and norms to hold states accountable.
Courts remain one of the strongest bulwarks against threats to democracy and civil liberties. Recent cases—from Brazil’s Supreme Court convicting a former president, to U.S. courts blocking executive overreach, to rare yet meaningful rulings in Hong Kong—demonstrate that judicial systems can deliver justice and uphold democratic norms.
However, the decline in freedom in many countries, political interference, and legitimacy challenges show that this role is fragile.
Protecting judicial independence, ensuring fair processes, and supporting civil liberties are essential to preserving democratic societies.
FAQs
How do courts balance national security and civil liberties?
Courts often use legal tests (e.g., proportionality, strict vs intermediate scrutiny) to assess whether restrictions on rights like free speech or assembly are justified by national security concerns. Judges weigh evidence, procedural fairness, and whether the restriction is the least restrictive necessary.
Can judicial elections weaken judicial independence?
Yes. While electing judges can increase democratic legitimacy and public accountability, low turnout, politicization of campaigns, influence of money, and lack of nonpartisan oversight can also undermine independence and impartiality.
What happens when courts fail to act or are compromised?
When courts are subverted, democratic erosion tends to accelerate: rights get curtailed, laws are passed without checks, the executive and legislative branches often expand power, and civil liberties decline. Citizens often resort to protests, international pressure, or legal reform movements to reclaim rights.