**Judges Halt Judicial Reform Discussions**
**By: TJ Gringo Editorial Team**
This weekend, two federal judges halted judicial reforms that were slated to be discussed on Monday, September 2, in the Chamber of Deputies. The first suspension (Case No. 1251/2024) was issued by Judge Martha Eugenia Magaña of the Fifth District Court in Morelos on Friday, August 30. This provisional suspension prevents the new legislature of the Chamber of Deputies from discussing these changes. On Saturday, Judge Felipe Consuelo Soto of the Third Amparo and Federal Trials Court in Chiapas granted another provisional suspension (Case No. 1190/2024) to further prevent the reform from being enacted.
Judge Soto’s order stated, “It is appropriate to grant the suspension ex officio regarding the effects and consequences of the challenged acts, so that the authorities constituting the Congress of the Union—namely, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate—within their respective competences, continue with the legislative process. In the event of the eventual approval of the constitutional reform decree, they must refrain from sending it to the legislatures of the States and Mexico City for the corresponding approval until the definitive suspension is resolved.”
**Legal Reactions**
The suspensions have sparked significant controversy among legal experts. The judicial reform under scrutiny aims to elect judges, ministers, and magistrates by popular vote, reduce the Supreme Court’s size, and create a Judicial Administration Body and a Disciplinary Tribunal.
Diego Valadés Ríos, a prominent critic of the reform, argued that the resolutions are unprecedented and lack legal basis, suggesting they compromise judicial independence. Similarly, Francisco Burgoa, a constitutional law professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), stated he does not support Judge Soto’s ruling, believing it will only “intensify the narrative against the Federal Judiciary.”
Academic Carla Escoffié criticized both suspensions, noting their irregularities. She stated, “I’ve seen numerous suspensions for illegal evictions and environmental issues denied due to high standards. If these standards were applied to these amparos against the reform, they would not have been granted.”
**Political Reactions**
In response to the suspensions, Ricardo Monreal, coordinator of Morena in the Chamber of Deputies, expressed strong discontent. In a video statement, he asserted, “This legislative majority—Morena and allies—categorically and energetically determine that they do not submit and will not submit to the jurisdiction of the court or courts ordering them, as they lack the competence to do so. The analysis, discussion, and potential approval of the judicial reform cannot be suspended. We are accountable only to our constituents who entrusted us with the mandate to reform and amend the Constitution.”
Monreal also accused the suspensions of violating the principle of legality and encroaching on legislative powers, calling them “a blatant violation of the Constitution.”
On the other hand, the National Action Party (PAN) senators reiterated their commitment to justice and the rule of law. “The decision of a court to suspend the discussion of the Judicial Reform must be adhered to. Let’s ensure transparent legislative processes #JusticeForAll,” the PAN Parliamentary Group tweeted.
—
**Related News**
**Judicial Reform Standoff: A Battle of Branches**
Further developments on the judicial reform standoff reveal deeper rifts within Mexico’s political landscape. Legal analysts have pointed out that the clash between the judiciary and the legislative branch is an indicator of the tensions surrounding the separation of powers in the country.
Business and civic organizations have also weighed in, expressing concern over the proposed reforms. They argue that shifting to popular elections for judges could undermine judicial independence and lead to politicized courts.
This contentious issue has also drawn attention from international observers. Various human rights organizations have called for maintaining strong checks and balances within Mexico’s governmental framework, cautioning against reforms that could weaken judicial impartiality.
We’ll continue to monitor and report on this evolving story as it unfolds.