MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Daniel Amézquita, Iván Valdespino, Sofía Jurado and Gilda Velázquez, Galicia Abogados
ing judicial independence and the separation of powers. The constitutional challenges questioned wheth - er the Supreme Court had the authority to review the substance of a constitutional amendment and assess its consistency with other constitu - tional principles and values. Faced with the possibility that the Supreme Court might declare itself competent to invali - date the Judicial Reform, a new constitutional amendment on the unchallengeability of consti - tutional reforms (the “Constitutional Supremacy Reform” ) was published in the evening edition of the Federal Official Gazette on 31 October 2024. This amendment explicitly prohibits judi - cial review of constitutional amendments. Furthermore, the second transitory article of the Constitutional Supremacy Reform stated that ongoing cases must be resolved accord - ing to the new mandates, effectively applying the amendment retroactively. This provision was intended to prevent the Supreme Court from rul - ing on the constitutional challenges against the Judicial Reform. This development arose because the draft ruling, prepared by Justice Juan Luis González Alcán - tara Carrancá, proposed invalidating certain pro - visions of the Judicial Reform, particularly those relating to the popular election of judges and magistrates. On 5 November 2024, the Supreme Court began discussing the ruling. A qualified majority of eight votes was required to declare a constitutional amendment invalid. However, during delibera - tions, Justices Lenia Batres, Yasmín Esquivel, Loretta Ortiz (who are generally aligned with the current administration) and Alberto Pérez Dayán
opposed the proposal, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate constitu - tional reforms. The final vote was seven in favour and four against, falling short of the majority needed to strike down the contested provisions. Regarding the amparo (constitutional review) lawsuits filed against the Judicial Reform, sev - eral district judges granted suspensions to halt its implementation until the cases were resolved. However, the Superior Chamber of the Federal Electoral Tribunal ruled that these suspensions were not binding, allowing the INE and other rel - evant authorities to continue the election pro - cess for judges. As a result, several judges requested the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the suspensions granted in amparo lawsuits and the Superior Chamber’s decision to disregard these precautionary measures, arguing that they were not issued by competent authorities. On 13 February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the suspensions granted by district judges had to be revoked within 24 hours, as they per - tained to electoral acts, against which amparo relief is not applicable. However, it also deter - mined that the Superior Chamber of the Federal Electoral Tribunal is not competent to disregard precautionary measures issued in amparo pro - ceedings. At time of writing, the Judicial Reform is still being implemented, with the candidates who will appear on the June 2025 election ballots already selected.
182 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook