Mexico's Judicial Reforms Lead to Friction With the US and Canada
In September 2024, Mexico passed a controversial judicial reform allowing the election of judges by popular vote, marking a radical shift in its legal system. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed that these changes would address corruption and democratize the judiciary. However, critics argue that they threaten judicial independence and legal stability, and the United States and Canada have expressed concern that the reforms could undermine Mexico's commitments under the USMCA, leading to potential disruption 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 a judicial reform after gaining a two-thirds super majority necessary to amend the constitution. This reform is part of President Obradors broader initiative known as "Fourth Transformation," which aims to elect judges, reduce their term, and adjust judicial salaries. The president argues that these changes will fight corruption and increase accountability in the justice system. However, both the US and Canada voiced strong opposition to the reform, citing concerns about judicial independence and its potential impact on trade between North America.
Key Provisions of the Reform
The reform introduces significant changes to Mexico’s judiciary:
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. This blurs the distinction between the executive and the judiciary and undermines the rationale for appointing them 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 seen by critics as being politically expedient for President Obrador and has been triggered by recent conflicts between the president and the Supreme Court, including over issues such as the electricity law, election law reforms, and the transfer of civilian-led control of the National Guard to the army. This raises concerns about potential risks to Mexico's relatively young democracy due to these reforms.
Domestic Reactions and Concerns from the US and Canada
The reform has sparked widespread protests in 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. 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 have also escalated diplomatic tensions between Mexico and its northern neighbors. Both the US and Canada are concerned about an elected judiciary destabilizing Mexico's legal system and making it difficult for businesses to operate under predictable legal frameworks. This concern is especially relevant given Mexico's deep economic ties with the US under the USMCA, which depend 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. The US sees an independent 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 worried about the stability of Mexico's judicial system.
These reactions from the United States and Canada have led to a temporary freeze in diplomatic relations. President Obrador has paused communication with their embassies and called their criticisms "interventionist."
Implications for Trade and USMCA Commitments
In the economic sphere, Canada and the US are deeply concerned about the impact of judicial reforms on the USMCA, which came into effect on 1 July 2020 after replacing NAFTA. These reforms are alleged to weaken Mexico's economic regulatory landscape, degrade its investment climate, dissolve checks and balances, and undermine its ability to fulfill international commitments.
The US and Canadian investors in Mexico can only pursue claims in the oil and gas, power generation, infrastructure, and telecommunications sectors, under the provisions of dispute settlement mechanisms governed by Chapter 31 of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). For disputes in other sectors, investors must navigate the domestic court system of Mexico before seeking arbitration under USMCA. This requirement raises concerns among US and Canadian investors regarding 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 controversial measures by President Obrador, including attempts to roll back the 2013 energy reforms 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 current trajectory of the country are particularly concerning for the stability of USMCA as it heads for review in July 2026. Economic relations between the countries of the Northern Hemisphere could deteriorate if the US and Canada express strong reservations about Mexico's recent judicial reforms. For example, if there are trade disputes, the US and Canada might prefer to settle issues within the framework of USMCA, while Mexico could insist on resolving them through its judicial system. These disagreements may prolong disputes, disrupt trade and potentially escalate into tariff wars. This concern is especially relevant given the interest of the US and Canada in a stable political and economic environment in Mexico, since they encourage manufacturers to move supply chains away 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 represent a setback to the longstanding judicial transition that the US has supported in Mexico since 2008 through the Merida Initiative.
The US and Mexico have consistently been concerned about the impunity of organized crime, particularly regarding cross-border criminal activity. Since 2008, the US has collaborated with the Mexican government on a security initiative called the Merida Initiative, which aims to improve Mexico's judicial system by transitioning it from an inquisitorial model to an oral, adversarial, and accusatory system. These changes aim to reduce corruption, enhance public trust in the judiciary, ensure quicker and fair trials, and establish a strong rule of law that benefits both countries.
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. 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. This raises concerns about the future independence and fairness of Mexico's judicial system, as well as the potential for organized crime funds to influence the election of judges. There is also concern about the possibility of diverting resources from addressing existing deficiencies in the justice system to conducting elections.
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.
On 11 September 2024, the Mexican Senate, dominated by the outgoing president, Lopez Obrador's ruling party, Morena, approved a judicial reform after gaining a two-thirds super majority necessary to amend the constitution. This reform is part of President Obradors broader initiative known as "Fourth Transformation," which aims to elect judges, reduce their term, and adjust judicial salaries. The president argues that these changes will fight corruption and increase accountability in the justice system. However, both the US and Canada voiced strong opposition to the reform, citing concerns about judicial independence and its potential impact on trade between North America.
Key Provisions of the Reform
The reform introduces significant changes to Mexico’s judiciary:
- 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.
- 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.
- Financial Revisions: Lifetime pensions for judges will be eliminated, and their salaries will be adjusted to the same cap as the President’s.
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. This blurs the distinction between the executive and the judiciary and undermines the rationale for appointing them 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 seen by critics as being politically expedient for President Obrador and has been triggered by recent conflicts between the president and the Supreme Court, including over issues such as the electricity law, election law reforms, and the transfer of civilian-led control of the National Guard to the army. This raises concerns about potential risks to Mexico's relatively young democracy due to these reforms.
Domestic Reactions and Concerns from the US and Canada
The reform has sparked widespread protests in 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. 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 have also escalated diplomatic tensions between Mexico and its northern neighbors. Both the US and Canada are concerned about an elected judiciary destabilizing Mexico's legal system and making it difficult for businesses to operate under predictable legal frameworks. This concern is especially relevant given Mexico's deep economic ties with the US under the USMCA, which depend 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. The US sees an independent 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 worried about the stability of Mexico's judicial system.
These reactions from the United States and Canada have led to a temporary freeze in diplomatic relations. President Obrador has paused communication with their embassies and called their criticisms "interventionist."
Implications for Trade and USMCA Commitments
In the economic sphere, Canada and the US are deeply concerned about the impact of judicial reforms on the USMCA, which came into effect on 1 July 2020 after replacing NAFTA. These reforms are alleged to weaken Mexico's economic regulatory landscape, degrade its investment climate, dissolve checks and balances, and undermine its ability to fulfill international commitments.
The US and Canadian investors in Mexico can only pursue claims in the oil and gas, power generation, infrastructure, and telecommunications sectors, under the provisions of dispute settlement mechanisms governed by Chapter 31 of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). For disputes in other sectors, investors must navigate the domestic court system of Mexico before seeking arbitration under USMCA. This requirement raises concerns among US and Canadian investors regarding 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 controversial measures by President Obrador, including attempts to roll back the 2013 energy reforms 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 current trajectory of the country are particularly concerning for the stability of USMCA as it heads for review in July 2026. Economic relations between the countries of the Northern Hemisphere could deteriorate if the US and Canada express strong reservations about Mexico's recent judicial reforms. For example, if there are trade disputes, the US and Canada might prefer to settle issues within the framework of USMCA, while Mexico could insist on resolving them through its judicial system. These disagreements may prolong disputes, disrupt trade and potentially escalate into tariff wars. This concern is especially relevant given the interest of the US and Canada in a stable political and economic environment in Mexico, since they encourage manufacturers to move supply chains away 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 represent a setback to the longstanding judicial transition that the US has supported in Mexico since 2008 through the Merida Initiative.
The US and Mexico have consistently been concerned about the impunity of organized crime, particularly regarding cross-border criminal activity. Since 2008, the US has collaborated with the Mexican government on a security initiative called the Merida Initiative, which aims to improve Mexico's judicial system by transitioning it from an inquisitorial model to an oral, adversarial, and accusatory system. These changes aim to reduce corruption, enhance public trust in the judiciary, ensure quicker and fair trials, and establish a strong rule of law that benefits both countries.
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. 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. This raises concerns about the future independence and fairness of Mexico's judicial system, as well as the potential for organized crime funds to influence the election of judges. There is also concern about the possibility of diverting resources from addressing existing deficiencies in the justice system to conducting elections.
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.
You May Also Interested