**Judge Grants First Protection Against Judicial Reform; Orders Legislative Process to be Nullified**
A significant judicial decision was made on December 10, 2024, by Judge Gabriela Ruiz Márquez, head of the Sixth District Court in Administrative Matters in Zapopan, Jalisco. She issued the first protection against the recent reform of the Federal Judicial Power (FJP), instructing that the legislative process be nullified. This implies that the actions taken following the legislative procedures must also be invalidated.
During the legislative process, the judge identified a “corrupting effect,” arising from various irregularities, casting doubt on the consent of the legislators. Furthermore, Judge Ruiz noted that this process unfolded amid systematic attacks from the Executive branch against the Judiciary, as part of a narrative to delegitimize it. The reforming body failed in its argumentative and evidential duties, unable to show how the judicial reform served a legitimate purpose.
“This caused a ‘corrupting effect’ of a nature that undermined the legitimacy of the legislative process, attending to it as a constitutional violation affecting the respect for minorities, developed within a framework of systematic Executive Power attacks against the Judiciary, funded with public resources, and via official communication channels,” stated Judge Ruiz Márquez in her ruling.
The judge pointed out that the constitutional substitution presented no justification beyond rhetoric, emphasizing that going beyond the constitutionally permitted limits posed a risk to the foundational elements of the State, such as the division of powers and the guarantee of human rights embodied through judicial independence.
In conclusion, the judge ordered all acts stemming from the reform process to be nullified. This decision, however, is open to appeals from several entities, including the Presidency, Senate, Chamber of Deputies, and others, which could eventually bring the matter before a higher court.
**Secondary Article: Potential Legal Battles Over Judicial Reform**
The recent ruling by Judge Ruiz Márquez against the judicial reform has set the stage for potential legal battles. The decision could be contested by numerous authorities, including the Presidency, Senate, and various legislative bodies, with the possibility of the case being escalated to a higher court.
If challenged, the case might reach a collegiate circuit court, and possibly the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). Unlike actions of unconstitutionality that require a qualified majority of eight votes, only six votes would be necessary to invalidate the judicial reform through an amparo. Nonetheless, it’s uncertain if the current SCJN plenary, serving until August 31, 2025, will resolve these amparos.
In related developments, similar nationwide judicial conflicts continue to unfold as other regions and entities evaluate the impact of the reform on their operations and governance frameworks. Political analysts speculate that these challenges will not only test the limits of judicial independence but also shape the future landscape of Mexico’s legal and political environment.