Mexico’s Judicial Reform: A Democratic Milestone or an Authoritarian Shift?

A Radical Overhaul of Mexico’s Judiciary

Mexico’s judicial reform of 2024, published on 15 September in the Official Journal of the Federation (DOF), marks one of the most profound structural changes to the country’s legal system in decades. The reform eliminates the Federal Judicial Council (CJF) and introduces popular elections for judges and magistrates. While supporters hail the changes as a step toward democratising justice, critics raise alarms about potential threats to judicial independence, professional standards, and Mexico’s economic stability.

Politicising Justice? Concerns About Judicial Independence

A central feature of the reform is the popular election of judges and magistrates. Advocates argue this system makes the judiciary more accountable to the public. However, opponents fear it could politicise the judicial system, replacing merit-based appointments with selections influenced by popularity and political campaigns.

Dr Diego García Ricci, a legal scholar at the Universidad Iberoamericana (IBERO), warns that popular elections for judges lack proven success globally. He highlights the risk of external pressures from political groups, undermining neutrality and fairness in judicial decisions. García Ricci stresses the need for transparency mechanisms to ensure judges are evaluated based on their rulings, qualifications, and professional ethics.

The reform has also attracted criticism from international observers, including Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, which caution that the changes could erode judicial independence. The introduction of anonymous judges, a practice condemned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, raises additional concerns about due process and transparency.

Economic Implications: Conflicts with the USMCA Trade Agreement

Beyond its political dimensions, the reform could have significant economic consequences by breaching commitments under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Several provisions in the agreement demand independent and impartial judicial systems:

• Chapter 14 (Investment) guarantees equitable treatment for investors.
• Chapter 23 (Labour) mandates fair and transparent labour tribunals.
• Chapter 29 (Administration) ensures due process in judicial practices.

Legal analysts caution that Mexico’s failure to uphold these obligations may result in trade disputes and sanctions, jeopardising economic stability and foreign investment. With 83% of exports directed to the United States and 44% of foreign direct investment (FDI) originating from the U.S., the stakes are high.

Disbanding Autonomous Regulatory Bodies: A Power Grab?

In addition to judicial reforms, the government proposes dismantling seven autonomous regulatory bodies, including the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT), Federal Economic Competition Commission (Cofece), and Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE). Their functions would be transferred to executive agencies, centralising power and raising fears of reduced accountability.

Such moves conflict with USMCA commitments:

• Chapter 18 (Telecommunications) requires independent regulatory authorities.
• Chapter 21 (Competition Policies) demands impartial enforcement.
• Chapter 22 (State Enterprises) calls for unbiased oversight of state-run companies.

Critics argue that eliminating these bodies could deter investment by creating an environment of regulatory uncertainty and weakening checks and balances.

Impact on Strategic Sectors: Energy, Water, and Biotechnology

The reform extends to critical sectors such as energy, water, and biotechnology, further heightening concerns about its broader implications:

• Energy: Favouring the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) over private enterprises could breach investment equality clauses in USMCA’s Chapter 14.
• Water: Restricting private concessions in water-scarce areas may create resource allocation disputes and discourage investment.
• Biotechnology: Banning genetically modified maize without scientific evidence contradicts USMCA’s rules against arbitrary trade barriers.

These reforms could lead to trade disputes, weakening investor confidence and threatening economic growth.

A Political Vision or an Authoritarian Overreach?

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) frames the reform as a cornerstone of his “Fourth Transformation” (4T) agenda, aimed at dismantling entrenched corruption and building a more equitable judicial system. Supporters believe the changes will empower citizens and remove barriers that favour the elite.

However, critics view the reform as a power grab, designed to consolidate influence over the judiciary and eliminate institutional checks on the executive. The reform’s timing—approved just before the transition to President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum—has raised suspicions of political motives.

Dr García Ricci argues that instead of enhancing democracy, the reform may undermine judicial impartiality. He highlights the need for safeguards, including public access to judicial rulings and strict selection criteria for judges.

Weighing the Costs: Mexico’s Economic and Democratic Future

The Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO) has warned that the reforms may destabilise Mexico’s economy, discourage foreign investment, and damage trade relations. Given that Mexico depends heavily on North American markets, maintaining compliance with the USMCA is essential.

Observers worry that the reform could push Mexico closer to authoritarianism, weakening its democratic framework and damaging its international reputation. The proposal’s impact on judicial independence, transparency, and accountability will likely shape Mexico’s trajectory for decades.

Final Thoughts: A Vision for Justice and Accountability

Mexico’s judicial reform of 2024 represents a defining moment in its democratic and economic evolution. While the government argues it strengthens access to justice and reduces corruption, critics highlight risks to independence, economic stability, and trade relations.

As a Mexican, I deeply understand the origins of this reform and the hope it represents for millions of my fellow citizens. We know that Mexico, divided into three branches of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial—can and must work toward creating a more balanced and efficient system. This reform presents a unique opportunity to strengthen our institutions and deliver a more transparent, accountable, and fair judiciary.

I have big hopes for this reform, and like many Mexicans, I believe we deserve a better country—one that offers justice, safety, and freedom for all. I am confident that Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s first female president, along with her government, will rise to the occasion and face these challenges in the best possible way. Her leadership marks a historic step forward, and it is our responsibility as citizens to demand excellence and integrity from all branches of government.

This reform is more than a legal shift; it is a vision for a better future—a future that we and our children deserve. With determination and unity, we can transform Mexico into a safer, freer, and more prosperous nation.

As implementation looms, Mexico must navigate competing priorities—judicial transparency, economic confidence, and democratic integrity—to avoid long-term damage. How Mexico resolves these challenges will determine its standing as a democratic nation and its economic future in the global arena.

The world is watching closely. Mexico’s handling of this transformation will either reinforce its commitment to democracy or raise alarms about authoritarian drift.

FAQ