‘The Rule of Law at Stake’: Expert Panel Raises Concerns about Mexico’s Judicial Reforms

Speakers at the Sept. 4 panel on judicial reforms in Mexico. Photo credit: Vance Center

As debate continues in Mexico about judicial reforms proposed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the Vance Center held a timely panel titled “Judicial Reform in Mexico: The Rule of Law and Legal Certainty at Stake,” to discuss the specific elements and potential consequences of these changes.

More than 40 attendees joined a conversation featuring prominent voices from the Mexican judiciary and international justice experts, who expressed deep concerns about the future of judicial independence under these reforms. The reforms would impact many aspects of the judiciary at state and federal levels, from appointments and tenure to changing the size and makeup of the Supreme Court.

Vance Center Associate Executive Director Jaime Chávez Alor opened the discussion, emphasizing that while judicial reform and processes for electing judges are as relevant topics for Mexico as any other country, the approach of the Mexican president, known as AMLO, and his Morena party to restructuring the judiciary is troubling. Chávez Alor highlighted how the proposed reforms would facilitate greater control over or even dismantle autonomous institutions responsible for technical matters. These bodies, which were designed to operate independently of the executive, have played a crucial role in maintaining transparency and justice in Mexico’s judicial system, he said.  

Laurence Pantin, director of the Fundación para la Justicia, a Mexican nonprofit focused on access to justice, elaborated on some of the alarming aspects of the reforms and their potential impact. She raised concerns about a lack of detail surrounding the process for evaluating candidates for judicial positions and broad investigation specifications for administrative violations, and warned that the reforms, which call to replace 6,500 current judges, would “paralyze” the court system. Pantin also noted that the proposed reforms would cut back on the requirements to be appointed as a judge – such as years of experience, law exam scores, and minimum age – a changes that could severely undermine judicial capacity.

On a practical level, she pointed out that, under the reforms, voters in 2025 would face an overwhelming list of over 300 candidates, including those supported by the executive, making it difficult for citizens to make informed choices. Pantin also drew attention to a recent addition to the reform: the introduction of so-called “faceless judges,” which would allow judges to hear alleged organized crime cases anonymously, without defendants knowing the identity of the presiding judge. In a 2017 case involving Peru, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) determined that this practice violates the right to a fair trial by depriving defendants of the guarantee of an independent and impartial judiciary (Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights).  

Speakers at the Sept. 4 panel on judicial reforms in Mexico. Photo credit: Vance Center

Margaret Satterthwaite, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, raised concerns about elements of the proposed reforms that could violate international human rights standards. While electing judges is not prohibited under international law, UNSR Satterthwaite emphasized that international norms require safeguards to ensure judicial independence and impartiality – elements she argued are missing from López Obrador’s proposal. She stressed that the arbitrary removal of thousands of judges for political reasons would be a serious violation of these standards, calling security in tenure “one of the key hallmarks of an independent judiciary.” 

The Special Rapporteur pointed out that, unlike elected officials who represent constituents, judges’ loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law. She cited her office’s recent report to the UN Human Rights Council on the risks of politicizing judicial appointments, an especially relevant concern in places where trust in government is already fragile.  

Mexican federal judges Hon. Monserrat Cid Cabello and Hon. Maria Emilia Molina offered firsthand insights into the impact of these reforms on the Mexican judiciary overall, as well as individual judges.

Justice Cid Cabello described Mexico’s 2021 Judicial Career Law, which established a merit-based system for selecting, training, and evaluating all judicial personnel. She contrasted this with the proposed reforms, which she described as a “regression [in terms of] human rights defense, professionalization, and building judicial independence.” She said that replacing merit-based criteria for judicial appointments would undo years of progress across the judiciary, compromising both judicial independence and access to justice for the Mexican public.  

Justice Molina echoed these concerns and framed the reforms as part of a broader strategy by AMLO’s administration to pressure and control the judiciary over the past six years. She recounted how government officials have publicly criticized and singled out judges who have ruled against the administration, including sharing their names and addresses, exposing them to harassment and other potential threats. Justice Molina also warned that the reforms would disproportionately affect human rights – of Mexican citizens as well as migrant populations transiting through Mexico – and that the dismissal of 466 women judges would erode the country’s progress toward gender parity in the judiciary.  

Speakers at the Sept. 4 panel on judicial reforms in Mexico. Photo credit: Vance Center

Úrsula Indacochea, Program Director of the Due Process of Law Foundation, provided a comparative perspective, examining similar reforms in other Latin American countries, beginning with Bolivia and Ecuador, where judges were elected through popular vote. While these reforms were part of broader political projects, Indacochea noted that they had to adhere to international human rights norms—something she said is currently at risk in Mexico. She emphasized the importance of involving the judiciary in reform processes, a step that has thus far been neglected in Mexico. She presented a contrasting example of reforms in Colombia and El Salvador, which occurred as part of peace negotiations and included meaningful input from judicial actors and the international community, leading to more balanced outcomes.

As the Mexican Senate prepares to vote on the proposed reforms, the panelists expressed fear that the outcome of this crucial decision could shape Mexico’s judicial landscape for years to come. However, the speakers also noted potential opportunities for counter-reforms and expressed cautious optimism that president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, who takes office on October 1, may reconsider some aspects of the reforms, especially given the potential negative impact on Mexico’s investment climate. Ultimately, the event spotlighted the profound risks these reforms pose—not only to the independence of Mexico’s judiciary but to the rule of law itself.  

Read more about our work on Mexico’s proposed judicial reforms: 

• Statement by the New York City Bar Association expressing concern about the proposal to reform the Mexican Judiciary 

• May 2024 conversation with members of the New York state and Mexican federal judiciary 

• April 2024 panel discussion organized with the Mexican Bar Association