Observing the Rule of Law: People's courts protect the legitimate rights and interests of market entities through supervision and correction of illegal administrative enforcement actions in accordance with the law. This not only helps to unify judicial judgment standards, but also strengthens the regulation and guidance of administrative law enforcement actions. The Supreme People's Court has recently released 10 typical cases of administrative enforcement involving enterprises in two batches, covering administrative enforcement measures such as sealing facilities, seizing property, and other types of administrative enforcement. In the case, the industries and administrative agencies involved in the plaintiff's enterprise exhibit diversified characteristics, demonstrating the judicial responsibility of the people's court to promote the construction of a rule of law business environment and safeguard high-quality development. The so-called administrative coercion refers to the activity of the administrative subject using coercive measures against the personal and property of administrative counterparties that are not subject to their will in order to achieve administrative management purposes. It is the third major type of administrative law enforcement behavior after administrative licensing and administrative punishment. The Administrative Compulsory Law of our country clearly requires that the establishment and implementation of administrative compulsory measures should be in accordance with the statutory authority, scope, conditions, and procedures. Since the implementation of this law in 2012, the phenomenon of arbitrary administrative coercive measures has been effectively curbed, but illegal sealing, seizure, freezing and other situations still occur from time to time. Data shows that from 2022 to 2024, the first instance administrative compulsory cases involving enterprises accepted by people's courts at all levels account for about 8% of all first instance administrative cases. Enterprises are the driving force of market entities, and private enterprises play an irreplaceable role in increasing employment, promoting innovation, and fostering economic growth. In recent years, the government has successively introduced laws and regulations such as the "Regulations on Optimizing the Business Environment" and the "Law on Promoting the Private Economy", focusing on reducing the institutional transaction costs of market entities by transforming government functions. However, 'the law alone is not enough', and even the best institutional arrangements need to be implemented through administrative and judicial practices. Since March this year, the special action to standardize administrative law enforcement related to enterprises has been comprehensively launched nationwide, which is a powerful response to prominent problems in reality. In April of this year, the Supreme People's Court issued a notice requiring the full play of the functions of the people's courts, standardizing the trial and execution of enterprise related cases, and ensuring high-quality development through strict and impartial judicial services. The 10 typical cases released this time are the specific implementation of relevant requirements, reflecting legal issues related to the legal application of administrative subjects' statutory powers, law enforcement procedures, and protection of trust interests. They have a positive significance in guiding administrative agencies to implement administrative coercive actions in accordance with the law. For example, in the first batch of the "Case of a New Energy Company and Bao v. Lucheng District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province for Confiscation of Property and Administrative Compensation", law enforcement officers from the district and city supervision bureau seized the involved ship and its oil products on the spot when they boarded the ship for inspection due to the crew's inability to provide documents such as ship certificates and proof of the legal source of oil products. Subsequently, the ship owner rushed to the scene to submit proof materials, but law enforcement officers refused to accept them without justifiable reasons. This move neither guarantees the procedural rights of administrative counterparties to make statements and defend themselves, nor delays the opportunity to ascertain the facts. The final court ruling confirmed that the detention was illegal and ordered the district and city supervision bureau to bear compensation responsibility, clarifying the principle that administrative agencies should fully protect the procedural rights of administrative counterparties. Against the backdrop of comprehensively promoting rural revitalization and strengthening agricultural infrastructure construction, the state encourages all types of enterprises to participate in rural public infrastructure construction in an orderly manner. However, when implementing expropriation based on public interest needs, we cannot forget all types of enterprises that have actual investment in the local area. This is related to the construction of a rule of law government and an honest government. In the case of "A Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Wangqu Street Office, Chang'an District, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province for Forced Demolition of Facilities", the court ruled that the street office's act of dismantling relevant communication equipment without signing a compensation agreement with the communication company was illegal. This is a vivid practice of equal protection of enterprise rights and interests in the field of expropriation, reflecting the strong supervision of judicial organs over illegal acts in the field of administrative coercion. The case of a certain greening limited liability company suing the People's Government of Taihe District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province for forced demolition of houses provides a judicial example for solving the phenomenon of administrative agencies' "hiding and seeking" that leads to the debtor having no way to sue. In this case, a certain greening company obtained the state-owned land use rights and above ground objects involved through bidding in 2014. In 2022, the district government will implement the construction of the ring road, and the houses involved are within the scope of expropriation. After the district government's "Compensation Decision for House Expropriation" and "Notice of Deadline Demolition" were revoked by the court's effective judgment, the houses involved were still forcibly demolished. In response to the defense reasons raised by the district government regarding the defendant's disqualification, the court, based on judicial interpretations and relevant evidence, determined that the district government was a qualified defendant and ruled to confirm that its actions were illegal, avoiding the enterprise from falling into business difficulties due to the lack of a way to protect its rights. This has played a good guiding and regulating role in the implementation of administrative enforcement actions by administrative agencies in accordance with the law. In the second batch of the "Case of a Cultural Communication Company suing the Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau of Anding District, Dingxi City, Gansu Province for Forced Demolition of Facilities", a communication company signed an agreement with the Municipal Highway Bureau to invest in the construction of bus stop pavilions and signs, which have been in operation for nearly 10 years. The Houqu Housing and Urban Rural Development Bureau ordered the demolition without its approval, and after the company failed to comply, the relevant bus stops and pavilions were forcibly demolished. The court believes that even if the district housing and construction bureau considers that the company has not been approved by it and does not meet the norms and standards, it should fully consider the protection of trust interests formed by the prior administrative actions, and follow the legal procedures to handle it, thus confirming that the district housing and construction bureau's forced demolition behavior is illegal. This judgment not only safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of market entities, but also promotes the coordinated policy-making and implementation of local governments, improves coordination and cooperation mechanisms, stabilizes the expectations of business entities, and effectively optimizes the business environment. Standardizing administrative law enforcement involving enterprises requires both the government's self-restraint and self-restraint from the source, process, and results, as well as the supervision and protection of judicial organs. These typical cases released by the Supreme People's Court embody the firm determination of the people's courts to protect the legitimate rights and interests of market entities through supervision and correction of illegal administrative coercive behavior in accordance with the law. They are not only conducive to unifying judicial judgment standards, but also to strengthening the norms and guidance of administrative law enforcement behavior, preventing similar illegal situations from happening again, and ensuring that all types of market entities can operate and develop with peace of mind within the framework of the rule of law. (The author is a professor at the Institute of Rule of Law and Government Research, China University of Political Science and Law) (News Agency)