MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Fernando García Gómez, Francisco de Rosenzweig, Yuriria Galicia and Diego Mora-Jensen, White & Case, S.C.
Electoral implementation and immediate consequences The first nationwide judicial elections were held in June 2025. Voter turnout was historically low, at between 12.5% and 13.3% of registered citizens. Numerous irregularities emerged: several candidates reportedly failed to meet academic or professional requirements, and media reports linked some nominees to organised crime networks. The judicial election was also heav- ily criticised for the complexity of the ballots and the number of candidates each citizen was supposed to know, and because certain groups reportedly close to the government distributed “cheat sheets” indicating which candidates to vote for. Despite these issues, electoral authorities validated the process. Eight of the nine Supreme Court Jus- tices elected were publicly aligned with MORENA, the ruling party. The same political trend dominated the newly created Disciplinary Tribunal. Uncertainty followed regarding the allocation of judi- cial posts and the retention of existing court clerk- ships. The delay in formal appointments has already produced procedural backlogs and confusion regard- ing jurisdictional assignments. Institutional and economic implications The reform jeopardises the checks and balances that underpin Mexico’s constitutional order. By exposing judicial office to partisan politics, it risks eroding both impartiality and predictability in adjudication. Inves- tors and international partners have voiced concerns, particularly under the USMCA framework, where the neutrality of courts is essential to the enforcement of investment and trade rights. Simultaneously, the judiciary’s operational budget has been reduced, and the Supreme Court must determine the fate of funds previously held in dissolved judicial trusts. The combination of financial austerity and insti- tutional re-engineering has led to delays, uncertainty and diminished confidence in the rule of law. Systemic consequences Beyond administrative disruption, the reform’s deep- er effect lies in its political logic: the judiciary, once a counterweight to executive power, now becomes
subject to electoral dynamics. The President’s prior frustration with judicial rulings that invalidated gov- ernment questionable measures – particularly in the energy sector and infrastructure – appears to have motivated the constitutional overhaul. Consistent with this, the reform prohibited the grant- ing of injunctions or amparo judgments with general effects against laws. The resulting limitation of judicial review power sets the stage for the subsequent statu- tory amendments to the Amparo Law. The amparo reform: erosion of constitutional protection The amparo is Mexico’s quintessential constitutional protection mechanism, enabling individuals and legal entities to challenge acts or norms that violate their fundamental rights. It operates both as a judicial review of administrative and legislative acts and as a safeguard against arbitrary authority. Historically, its flexibility – especially the power to suspend governmental acts pending judgment – has been essential to effective protection. Two waves of reform, in 2024 and 2025, have now altered this land- scape profoundly. The federal government is pursu- ing these reforms to limit “abuses” by citizenship that have barred the government from collecting taxes or that have suspended the applications of laws or the continuation of infrastructure projects, causing harm to the population. The 2024 amendments: restricting injunctive relief The first reform was published on 14 June 2024 and sought to curtail what the executive perceived as judi- cial overreach. It introduced two critical restrictions. • Limitation on injunctions: courts must deny sus- pensions where the effects of the challenged act are deemed to involve public order or social inter- est. Article 129 of the Amparo Law has always set out the scenarios in which granting a suspension is presumed to affect public order and social interest. However, the reforms approved in 2024 eliminated a key paragraph from that article, which previously allowed judges to determine, in specific cases, whether the situation fell outside those scenarios,
723 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook