**Federal Judiciary Council Orders Resumption of Court Activities; Justice Gómez Fierro Steps Down**
The Federal Judiciary Council (CJF) has unanimously declared that all judicial work suspensions, initiated on August 19, 2024, across the nation’s courts in protest of amendments to the Federal Judiciary of the Federation (PJF), must come to an end. This decision emerged from a plenary session on October 16, 2024, against a backdrop of controversy surrounding these judicial reforms.
Six councilors voted in favor of resuming operations, including the President of the Supreme Court, Norma Lucía Piña Hernández, and councilors José Alfonso Montalvo Martínez, Sergio Javier Molina Martínez, Bernardo Bátiz, Verónica De Gyves Zárate, and Celia Maya García. Lilia Mónica López Benítez was notably absent.
Despite the closures on October 16, the CJF confirmed it would not pursue administrative actions against employees but emphasized that court personnel are now required to maintain attendance records. This move aims to prevent any potential liability issues.
Although the CJF recognized workers’ right to protest, it highlighted that the continued closure of courts did not have the support of most judges and magistrates. These judicial figures had voted on October 11, 2024, to resume operations, with a focus on both urgent matters and regular judicial activities.
Moreover, the CJF noted that the protest actions, such as building blockades and halting judicial procedures, lacked legal backing under bureaucratic law. However, it reiterated that no punitive measures would be enacted against those involved in the protests, acknowledging their right to express dissent.
On the same day, Justice Juan Pablo Gómez Fierro, with a 22-year tenure, announced his resignation. Known for blocking several initiatives from former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Gómez Fierro considered the new judicial reforms to be contrary to the separation of powers within the government. He expressed his intentions to continue advocating for justice system integrity from outside government roles.
**Secondary Article: Updates on Mexican Judicial Reforms**
Recent developments in Mexico’s judicial reform efforts have stirred widespread debate and reaction among the legal community and political observers. The reforms, aimed at restructuring the Federal Judiciary’s functioning and operations, have faced criticism from various stakeholders who argue they undermine judicial independence and the separation of powers.
Prominent judiciary figures and legal analysts have voiced concerns that these changes may concentrate too much authority within the executive branch, potentially leading to compromised legal outcomes. In response to these apprehensions, there have been multiple calls for dialogue and potential revisions to ensure the judiciary’s autonomy is preserved.
While some legal scholars view the reforms as necessary for improving efficiency and accountability within the judiciary system, others insist that such moves should not come at the expense of constitutional principles or risk eroding public confidence in the legal system.
As these reforms continue to unfold, they mark a critical juncture for Mexico’s institutions, setting the stage for ongoing discussions about the balance between reform, efficiency, and the upholding of democratic values within the country’s governance framework.