Justice Denied: The Case for Judicial Reform in Mexico

The Mexican judiciary is in crisis. 

Most Mexicans do not trust their judicial system due to rampant corruption, nepotism, and subservience to monied interests in both the federal and local judiciaries. The courts have been utterly incapable of addressing the impunity, insecurity, and violence that principally afflicts the poorest sectors of society, denying justice to those who cannot afford it, while providing swift recourse to those who can. 

It is a system which purports to be a meritocracy through its structured "judicial career path,” but is actually dominated by a few families with strongholds in the judiciary, and key positions are obtained through influence-peddling and the sale or distribution of exam answers to the well-connected in selection processes. The exams themselves are outdated, geared toward rote memorization, and biased (particularly at the oral stage), systematically excluding women and minorities. In a nation with profound economic inequalities, the result is a judiciary that represents only a tiny fraction of Mexican society and its views on the law. At the local level, less than a third of the states have merit-based evaluations for judicial vacancies. 

Recognizing the need for change and warning that if the Judiciary did not transform itself, changes would be forced upon it from outside, in 2021, former Chief Justice Arturo Zaldívar's administration proposed a comprehensive reform. With the support of the federal executive and legislative branches of government, as well as local legislatures, the reform aimed to combat corrupt practices, including the sale of confidential information and cheating in judicial selection processes. It also sought to dismantle networks of influence between law firms and public officials, resulting in criminal prosecutions. The administration rehauled and strengthened the Judicial Academy and the Public Defender´s Office; established stricter criteria for the retention of judges; reformed policies for the geographic assignment of judges; introduced the digital tracking of family relationships within the judiciary and of changes in the assets of public servants; dismissed high-level officials who engaged in sexual and gender-based violence; and implemented policies for gender parity that received international recognition. These reforms significantly disrupted entrenched interests within the system. 

However, since January 2023, the current judicial administration reversed most of these reforms, restoring the status quo ante, and openly challenged the other branches of government under the banner of “judicial independence.” According to the Judiciary´s own data, last year it received 391 complaints of corruption and nepotism within its ranks, but none led to the dismissal of judges. And in April 2024, the Council of the Federal Judiciary´s principal administrative body attempted to usurp powers belonging to the Council´s Appointments Commission, so as to attain greater discretion in the geographical assignment of judges. 

In short order, the Federal Judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, lost all semblance of impartiality and have, instead, openly taken on the role of opposition to the government in power. This is evident in the Chief Justice’s public and private attempts to skew this year´s election, but also in plainly political rulings against initiatives of the executive aimed at leveling the playing field in electoral law, strengthening Mexican sovereignty over its energy sector, reforming government advertising rules in order to reduce wasteful spending and the influence of money in politics, and eliminating various government trust funds that were sources of corruption and mismanagement. 

Such rulings departed from precedent, significantly hardening the Court´s criteria for evaluating whether a legislative proceeding was properly executed and allowing precautionary measures in amparo proceedings to suspend the general effects of a law, even though such measures can only be applied inter partes. With these rulings, the Court protected traditional private and economic interests in politics, the media, and the energy sector, with a decidedly neoliberal bent. 

Predictably, calls for reform intensified and, on February 5th, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador presented an initiative for judicial reform that features the popular election of local and federal district and circuit court judges, as well as Supreme Court justices; the creation of an independent disciplinary tribunal to oversee judicial conduct and guarantee judges´ adherence to the law; and rules to ensure timely access to justice.  

All of these measures seek to democratize the judiciary, reduce political influence, enhance transparency, and promote accountability. By involving all three branches of government in forming candidate lists for public elections, the reform expands access to judicial vacancies: it removes the President´s exclusive authority to nominate justices and judicial elites' monopoly over lower court appointments. The proposal explicitly prohibits political parties from endorsing candidates or using public or private funds for campaigns, ensuring that judges are chosen based on their qualifications rather than connections. Additionally, the proposal mandates gender parity, immediately eliminating gender imbalances in the judiciary. This focus on diversity ensures that the judiciary reflects the society it serves, promoting fairness and inclusivity.

There is no perfect system for the selection of judges. But, as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in the case of White, judges create law though their rulings, and they do so based on certain preconceived notions about its application. Therefore, it aligns with democratic values that the People choose the ideologies that will guide the decisions that impact their lives. As a close ally, the US should support reforms that aim to democratize, strengthen the rule of law, and combat corruption in the Mexican Judiciary.