and may continue through the courts.Meta-thought: I have started to pay attention to just how often courts strike down executive decisions because they are unlawful, and strike down new laws because they are unconstitutional or in conflict with international agreements. People tend to blame activist judges, but most of the time the judges are just trying to interpret the laws as they are written.
There seems to be an interesting dynamic at work where societies ossify through accretion of laws. As more international agreements are signed and laws are put on the books, the web of constraints that new policies must adhere to grows more complicated, and the ability by the public to get a new executive decision or a new law stricken through the court system grows greater. When a great reset happens (a revolution) you tend to see a nimble government immediately after, but also often accompanied with widespread civil rights violations, and as the laws and deals and civil rights start accreting the pace of change slows down.
Looking at my own country for example (Belgium). Back in the 60's the government could just decide to build nuclear power plants, without consulting the public at all, because there was very little in the form of environmental legislation or international agreements to bind them. Nowadays we can't legally decide to keep the plants open past 2025, because the work necessary to keep them open can't start without changing the law, and changing the law cannot legally be done without an EU-wide consultation and environmental impact study process. Any attempts to do these things anyway would quickly get blocked by the courts.
I find this increasing level of legal ossification endlessly fascinating in a somewhat terrifying sort of way. It makes me wonder whether democracy inevitably leads to incapable frozen government that needs a non-democratic great reset to wipe away the accreted laws and unlock the government's ability to get things done.