On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) decided against Lenia Batres Guadarrama’s proposal to retract the draft decision by Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá. This proposal sought to address constitutional challenges raised by opposition parties against the reform of the Federal Judiciary (PJF). The motion was dismissed by a vote of nine to two.
Ministers Norma Lucía Piña Hernández, Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, Ana Margarita Ríos-Farjat, Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá, Javier Laynez Potisek, Alberto Gelacio Pérez Dayán, Luis María Aguilar Morales, and Loretta Ortiz Ahlf voted in favor of considering the project, with opposition from Yasmín Esquivel Mossa and Lenia Batres Guadarrama.
Minister Piña Hernández highlighted the historical significance of the decision, noting that it would be scrutinized not just by the country’s legal community but also internationally and by future generations. She assured that the ministers were upholding their constitutional oath throughout the process.
González Alcántara Carrancá’s project aimed to declare unconstitutional the election of judges and magistrates through popular vote, while maintaining the election of ministers in an attempt to resolve the ongoing “constitutional crisis.” The project also sought to invalidate the concept of faceless judges and the elimination of collective amparos, while preserving the election of SCJN members and certain Federal Electoral Tribunal officials.
Furthermore, the project proposed invalidating local judicial renewals across states by preventing the replacement of experienced judges with those elected through popular vote, which he argued infringed upon constitutional principles and threatened constitutional democracy.
Outside the SCJN, a crowd of citizens, workers, activists, and opposition lawmakers gathered in support of the court’s ministers. Margaret Satterthwaite, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, criticized the judicial reform, arguing that it could undermine judicial independence and accountability.
[Secondary Article]
In related news, the dispute over Mexico’s judicial reforms continues to draw international attention. While the government argues that electing judges by popular vote will enhance accountability and democratic representation, critics fear this could politicize the judiciary and compromise its independence. Concerns revolve around the risk of judicial decisions becoming influenced by political and economic pressures, straying from the principle of impartiality central to justice systems globally.
Prominent voices among Mexico’s legal and political spheres emphasize the potential disruptions these reforms might cause. They argue that replacing experienced judges en masse with newer appointees could destabilize the judicial system, diluting the quality of legal expertise and affecting legal proceedings’ effectiveness.
As Mexico navigates these challenging legal transformations, the resolution of this constitutional debate will significantly impact the nation’s democratic fabric and the judiciary’s role within the governmental structure.