Constitutional Crisis Looms as Supreme Court Reviews Contentious Judicial Reform
The judicial reform stands at a critical crossroads, facing one final chance to be halted or significantly altered. This Tuesday, Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) will begin its review of Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá’s proposal, which aims to take a “Solomonic” approach—upholding certain aspects of the reform while striking down others.
Supreme Court Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá
For the proposal to succeed, it will need the backing of at least eight out of the 11 justices. Among the justices, a clear divide has emerged. Eight of the eleven are considered potentially independent, in that they submitted their resignation effective next August, and will not run in the Supreme Court elections mid next year. Three are for sure aligned with the current administration’s agenda, namely Yasmín Esquivel, Loretta Ortiz and Lenia Batres. Will the eight hold firm and support González Alcántara’s proposal?
President Claudia Sheinbaum has dismissed this judicial review, asserting it “lacks foundation” and insisting that the judicial reform is not in jeopardy. Last week in a move in part to block this possible ruling, Congress and a majority of the states approved the Constitutional Supremacy law – which seeks to block the Supreme Court from declaring unconstitutional constitutional changes of this nature. However, notwithstanding the new Supremacy law, if the executive and legislative branches were to defy a ruling from the SCJN, Mexico could find itself in an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
How did we get here? On October 3, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the constitutionality of the judicial reform, which was published in the Official Gazette on September 15. By a majority of eight votes to three, the Court accepted the case, underscoring its duty to “safeguard the autonomy and independence of the federal judiciary.”
The González Alcántara proposal seeks to uphold key parts of the reform, including the election of Supreme Court justices, the dismantling of judicial trusts, and the creation of the Judicial Discipline Tribunal, but aims to strike or slow down provisions such as the election of most judges outside the Supreme Court and magistrates and the implementation of “faceless judges.” Setting the first round of judicial elections for mid-2025, before many current judges’ terms expire, Mexico’s Congress has infringed on the federal judiciary’s independence and the constitutional separation of powers, the statement asserts. Though analysts and experts have called the proposal balanced and prudent, the ruling party has shown no intention of backing down.
González Alcántara argued that the constitutional supremacy reform will not impact the upcoming SCJN ruling on November 5 to nullify the judicial reform. “We now know they have the power and capability to introduce a new initiative, but we’re talking about how the world is watching us, about the constitutional crisis they’re pushing us into,” he remarked.
What’s next?
With the constitutional supremacy reform now approved, Mexico faces a challenging future for judicial independence and democratic checks. By blocking judicial oversight on constitutional amendments, many legal experts warn this reform effectively hands unchecked power to the executive, stripping away essential protections against potential abuses.
What will Sheinbaum do? On the one hand, a constitutional crisis in Mexico could send a troubling signal to investors and the private sector, casting doubt on the country’s commitment to rule of law and institutional stability. On the other, accepting Alcántara’s proposal would enable the government to cancel what many fear will be logistical, legal and political chaos – electing thousands of unknown judges for the first time. And finally, by next year Morena will control the Supreme Court anyway, so why not just wait?
However, backing down might show political weakness, divide the hard-core faction in the Morena, and anger her mentor, AMLO. And of course, Morena would no longer control the entire judiciary beginning from next year which many suspect is its real motive behind the reform.
Understanding the reforms: the Supreme Court is no longer the final check on power
The SCJN became a crucial check on the Fourth Transformation’s agenda under the AMLO government, blocking significant reforms sent by the executive to Congress and rubber-stamped by Morena’s majority.
Through landmark rulings, the Court struck down the so-called Plan B, which aimed to weaken the Electoral Institute (INE), rejected the Electricity Industry Law, and blocked the transfer of the National Guard to the Ministry of Defense. This “obstruction”, evidently, eventually became intolerable for the administration.
The solution? To rewrite the Constitution itself. This reform amends Articles 105 and 107, making it impossible to file amparos, actions of unconstitutionality, or constitutional controversies against amendments to the Constitution—even if they infringe human rights or were pushed through with procedural irregularities.
Morena and its allies have blocked any challenge to constitutional amendments. The so-called “Constitutional Supremacy” reform was published in the Federal Official Gazette on Thursday (Oct. 31), after being rushed through both houses of Congress, and then most state legislatures in a record-fast 16-hour approval process.
This measure, promoted to prevent the judiciary from “interfering” with legislative decisions, is designed to effectively remove any legal obstacles that could question the legislation Congress approves.
Until now, actions of unconstitutionality were a significant constitutional safeguard. These actions allowed legitimate actors, such as legislators representing at least a third of parliament, to challenge the SCJN laws contradicting the Constitution. Now, amendments can no longer be challenged. Similarly, challenges by the Attorney General, political parties, or the CNDH, meant to protect democratic integrity, are now outlawed.
Furthermore, the reform dismantles the concept of “general effects” in amparo rulings, stripping the Court of the ability to extend protections to those beyond the plaintiffs. Over the past decade, the Court used this power to protect human rights by issuing broad judgments in cases involving legislative omissions or unconstitutional laws. This will not be possible anymore.
The reform also includes a transitory article on the retroactivity of laws, stating: “lawsuits, appeals, and consultations questioning the validity of any addition or reform to this Constitution—whether regarding form, procedure, or substance—that are pending at the time this decree takes effect will be directly subject to its provisions, will be rendered moot, and will be dismissed.” This means that all ongoing cases or appeals challenging any reform must be immediately discarded and cannot proceed.
Morena has defended the reform, claiming it’s part of a historic effort to strengthen the rule of law and aims to “reaffirm that nothing and no one is above the Constitution.”
President Sheinbaum considered that reinforcing constitutional supremacy is not an attack on justice but in fact a measure to protect the rule of law. The initiative’s bill on constitutional supremacy will respect every step of the parliamentary process in the House of Deputies; it’s a reminder that the country has a clear legal order and that each branch of government has limits.
The opposition had explained that this reform deceived the people by stripping citizens of their legitimate tools to defend against abuse and arbitrariness from their representatives. It violated the fundamental principles that shaped the 1917 Constitution, such as separating powers and preventing the concentration of power in a single branch.
Contact:
Laura Camacho
Executive Director Miranda Public Affairs
laura.camacho@miranda-partners.com
Read as PDF: MIPublicAffairsChatter110424