Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: In September 2024, Mexico passed a controversial judicial reform enabling the election of judges by popular vote, marking a drastic shift in its legal system. While President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador claims these changes will address corruption and democratize the judiciary, critics argue that, they threaten judicial independence and legal stability. The United States and Canada have expressed concerns that the reforms could undermine Mexico’s commitments under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), leading to potential disruptions in North American trade and diplomatic relations. 

Introduction

On 11 September 2024, the Mexican Senate, dominated by the outgoing President, Lopez Obrador’s ruling party Morena, approved the judicial reform after winning the two-thirds supermajority needed to amend the Constitution. This reform, part of the President’s broader initiative known as the “Fourth Transformation[i],” aims to elect judges, reduce their tenure, and adjust judicial salaries. President Obrador argues that these changes will combat corruption and increase accountability in the judiciary. However, the US and Canada have voiced strong opposition, citing concerns over judicial independence and the potential impact on North American trade. 

Key Provisions of the Reform
The reform introduces significant changes to Mexico’s judiciary^[ii]:

1. Election of Judges: Judges will now be elected by popular vote, rather than nominated by an independent body. The goal is to increase accountability by making the judiciary answerable to the public.
2. Reduction in Supreme Court Judges: The number of Supreme Court justices will be reduced from 11 to 9, with their tenure shortened from 15 years to 12.
3. Financial Revisions: Lifetime pensions for judges will be eliminated, and their salaries will be adjusted to the same cap as the President’s.

These changes mark a historic shift for Mexico, making it the first country in the world to elect its judiciary. Supporters see it as a step toward democratizing a judicial system long criticized for corruption and inefficiency. As of 23 September, all but two of Mexico’s 33 state Congresses have ratified the reform. These reforms are anticipated to continue under Mexico’s new President Claudia Sheinbaum who is also from the Morena party. By 12 February 2025, the Senate is required to approve the names of candidates and send the nominees to the National Electoral Institute (INE). The election of judges is expected to commence on 1 June 2025[iii]. 

However, the election of judges is widely criticized for compromising judicial independence and impartiality. Critics argue that elected judges may prioritize gaining voter support over strictly adhering to legal principles, making decisions influenced by public sentiment or political pressure. Moreover, the need for campaign funding creates potential conflicts of interest, as donors may expect favourable rulings in return. Such dynamics undermine public trust in the judiciary, turning judges into campaigners rather than neutral arbiters of justice. It blurs the distinction between the executive and judiciary and the rationale of appointing to their posts. 

Further, candidates with strong ties to political parties or wealthy donors can secure better funding and visibility, giving them an advantage. This makes it difficult for equally qualified but less connected candidates to compete, potentially turning the judiciary into an arena shaped more by political affiliations than by merit and legal expertise, ultimately compromising its independence. As a result, these elections can politicize the judiciary, blurring the lines between legal adjudication and political influence. 

The judicial overhaul is also considered by critics as being for the political expediency of President Obrador, and as having been triggered by recent instances of tussle between the President and the Supreme Court over various such as electricity law, electoral law reforms and the transfer of control over the civilian-led National Guard to the Army. This raises concerns about the potential dangers the reforms pose to Mexico’s relatively young democracy. 

Domestic Reactions and Concerns from the US and Canada 

The reform has sparked widespread protests within Mexico. Federal judges and judicial staff went on strike, with some even unsuccessfully attempting to storm the Senate in protest. Mexico’s Chief Justice, Norma Lucía Piña Hernández, warned that the reforms would blur the line between judicial independence and political influence[iv]. Critics argue that by forcing judges to campaign for votes, the reforms could diminish the role of experience and merit in the judicial selection process. 

The judicial reforms also have escalated diplomatic tensions between Mexico and its northern neighbours. Both the US and Canada are concerned that an elected judiciary could destabilize Mexico’s legal system, making it difficult for businesses to operate under predictable legal frameworks. This concern is especially relevant given the country’s deep economic ties under the USMCA, which depends on stable legal institutions to uphold trade agreements. 

The US Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, warned that the reform poses a “significant risk to Mexico’s democracy” and could jeopardize economic cooperation under the USMCA[v]. The US sees an impartial judiciary as crucial for resolving trade disputes and ensuring fair business practices. The Canadian Ambassador Graeme Clark echoed similar concerns, stating that the reforms have made Canadian investors wary about the stability of Mexico’s judicial system. 

These reactions from the US and Canada have led to a temporary freeze in diplomatic relations, with President Obrador pausing communication with their embassies, calling their criticisms “interventionist.” 

Implications for Trade and USMCA Commitments 

In the economic sphere, Canada and the US are deeply concerned with the impact of judicial reforms on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which came into being on 1 July 2020, after replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The judicial reforms may allegedly weaken Mexico’s economic regulatory landscape, degrade its investment climate, dissolve checks and balances and undermine its ability to fulfil international commitments[vi].

The US and Canadian investors in Mexico can pursue claims only in the oil and gas, power generation, infrastructure, and telecommunications sectors under the provisions of dispute settlement mechanisms governed primarily by Chapter 31 of the USMCA. For disputes in other sectors, investors must navigate Mexico's domestic court system before seeking arbitration under the USMCA[vii]. This requirement raises concerns among US and Canadian investors about the impartiality of the legal process and the potential impact of recent judicial reforms on fair adjudication in dispute resolution.

Moreover, this reform follows a series of contested measures by President Obrador, including attempts to roll back the 2013 energy reforms[viii] and prioritize state-owned enterprises. These policies have already drawn complaints from both the US and Canada, who argue that Mexico is violating the agreement’s provisions on fair competition and market access.

President Obrador’s reforms and the country’s current trajectory are particularly concerning for USMCA’s stability as it heads for review in July 2026. The economic relations between the Northern Hemispheric countries could deteriorate if the U.S. and Canada express strong reservations about Mexico's recent judicial reforms. For example, in the event of trade disputes, the U.S. and Canada might favour settling issues within the framework of the USMCA, whereas Mexico could insist on resolving them under its judicial system. Such disagreements may prolong disputes, disrupt trade, and potentially escalate into tariff wars. This concern is particularly relevant given the U.S. and Canada’s interest in a stable political and economic environment in Mexico, as they encourage manufacturers to shift supply chains from China.

The Judicial Reforms undermines years of US-Backed Justice System Transformation

The ongoing judicial reforms in Mexico are a growing concern for the US, not only because of their potential impact on trade relations under the USMCA but also because they are a setback for the longstanding judicial transition[ix] that the US has supported in Mexico since 2008 under the Merida Initiative[x].

The US and Mexico consistently have been concerned about the impunity of organized crime, particularly regarding cross-border criminal activities. Since 2008, the US has collaborated with the Mexican government to fund a security initiative known as the Merida Initiative. One of its key focuses is to improve Mexico’s judicial system by transitioning from an inquisitorial model to an oral, adversarial, and accusatory justice system[xi]. These changes aim to reduce corruption, enhance public trust in the judiciary, ensure quicker and fairer trials, and establish a strong rule of law beneficial to both countries[xii].

When Mexico’s Congress passed the criminal justice transformation reforms under the Merida Initiative, it set an eight-year deadline for their completion by June 2016. However, despite progress, the transition remains incomplete, with persistent backlogs in justice institutions, inadequate infrastructure, and gaps in training for judicial personnel[xiii]. The delays in implementing judicial reforms have worsened issues such as prison overcrowding and prolonged pre-trial detention.

In this context, the current judicial reforms of President Obrador are viewed by the US as a contrasting approach to the previously US-supported criminal justice transformation in Mexico, raising concerns about the future independence and fairness of Mexico’s judicial system. The US has apprehensions over the potential for organized crime funds to influence the election of judges and the possibility of diverting resources to conduct these elections rather than addressing the existing deficiencies in the justice system's transformation.

Conclusion

Mexico’s judicial reforms are a bold move to reshape the country’s legal landscape but have sparked concerns about judicial independence, executive-judiciary distinction, and democratic stability. The reforms have also strained Mexico’s relations with its North American partners, raising questions about the future of trade and diplomatic cooperation. While President Obrador’s administration sees the changes as a necessary step to combat corruption and democratize the judiciary, the US and Canada view them as a threat to the stability and consolidation of Mexico’s legal system and the North American economic integration.

*****

*Girisanker Nair, Research Associate, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal.

Endnotes

[i]Note- The nomenclature of President Obrador’s ‘Fourth Transformation’ comes after the three major historical episodes- the Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821), the Reform War (1857–1861), and the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920). It represents President Obrador's vision for a profound social and political overhaul, addressing systemic issues in security, governance, and social inequality along with emphasising self-sufficiency. As a result of this, the President has pushed for legal reforms to hold politicians and public officials accountable, expanded social assistance programmes like pensions for the elderly, scholarships for students, and financial support for the unemployed and rural farmers, enacted labour, and tax laws, strengthened state control over national resources, and pushed for judicial reforms to fight corruption.

[ii] Gobernación, Secretaría de. “Reforma al Poder Judicial responde al reclamo de justicia del pueblo de México: Segob.” gob.mx. Accessed September 20, 2024.

http://www.gob.mx/segob/prensa/reforma-al-poder-judicial-responde-al-reclamo-de-justicia-del-pueblo-de-mexico-segob?idiom=es.

[iii] A Timeline of Mexico’s Judicial Reform and Elections | AS/COA,” September 23, 2024. https://www.as-coa.org/articles/timeline-mexicos-judicial-reform-and-elections.

[iv] Protests in Mexico as Controversial Judicial Reform Passed.” Accessed September 24, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4y9q74j2ko.

[v] Mexico, U. S. Mission to. “On Mexico’s Judicial Reform Proposal.” U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Mexico, August 22, 2024. https://mx.usembassy.gov/on-mexicos-judicial-reform-proposal/.https://mx.usembassy.gov/on-mexicos-judicial-reform-proposal.

[vi] “Turning Point: The Impact of AMLO’s Reforms on USMCA and Nearshoring | Wilson Center.” Accessed September 18, 2024. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/turning-point-impact-amlos-reforms-usmca-and-nearshoring.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] “The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).” Congressional Research Services, May 2024. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R44981.pdf.

[ix] Note- Mexico’s 2008 judicial sector reforms comprise four main elements: 1) changes to criminal procedure through the introduction of new oral, adversarial procedures, alternative sentencing, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms; 2) a greater emphasis on the due process rights of the accused (i.e., the presumption of innocence and an adequate legal defence); 3) modifications to police agencies and their role in criminal investigations; and 4) tougher measures for combating organized crime.

[x] Note- The Merida Initiative is a security cooperation agreement between the United States and Mexico aimed at combating drug trafficking, organised crime, and related violence. Launched in 2008, it provides funding, training, and resources to improve law enforcement capabilities, enhance border security, and strengthen the judicial system in the region. The initiative is named after Merida, a city in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico where the initial discussions and agreements between President Bush and President Calderon took place

[xi] Note- The change was initiated as the old inquisitorial system was considered less transparent. It placed the burden of proof on the prosecutor, and the defense did not have any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

[xii] Seelke, Clare Ribando. “Mexico: Background and U.S. Relations.” Congressional Research Service, May 17, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42917.

[xiii] Hinojosa, Gina, and Maureen Meyer. “Mexico’s Rule of Law Efforts: 11 Years After Criminal Justice Reforms Challenges and Opportunities for the López Obrador Administration.” WOLA, November 2019. https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/JUSTICE-REFORMS-REPORT-ENG.pdf.