The Controversial Election Process
On June 1, 2025, history will remember as the day when infamy was consummated. Amidst a flawed process riddled with illegalities, including stuffing ballot boxes in the Viceregal Palace or “La Chingada,” coercion of beneficiaries of government transfers, and more, members for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the Judicial Discipline Tribunal, half of federal district judges and magistrates, as well as state judges in 19 federal entities were “elected.”
Low Voter Turnout and Lack of Institutional Checks
With a mere 10% of the electoral roll casting their votes, President Sheinbaum and her entourage declared this election a resounding success. While the process itself fell far short of being successful, her wide grin betrays satisfaction at having consolidated a regime devoid of institutional checks on the authoritarian exercise of power. Mexico took a step closer to a potentially soft dictatorship on June 1, 2025.
Impact on Judicial Independence and Constitutional Certainty
The election of loyal Morena and López ministers, magistrates, and federal district judges, coupled with the aberrant “constitutional supremacy” that bars challenges to constitutional reforms and alterations to the amparo figure, has obliterated whatever little certainty remained in legal matters and individual liberties’ defense.
Morena’s Control and Constitutional Modification
With Morena controlling all three branches of government, they can alter the entire Constitution without any impediment. Even without amendments, the mere fact that judges are no longer independent or impartial—and possibly ignorant of the law—leaves Mexicans defenseless against arbitrary and authoritarian power exercise, with severe repercussions on legal certainty, personal freedoms, and economic development potential.
Potential Consequences
- Price Controls: If the government imposes price controls without verifying monopolistic practices (Article 28), affected companies would need to file for an amparo before a government-loyal district judge. Should most fail to obtain amparos due to resource constraints or fear of repercussions from the Disciplinary Judicial Tribunal, the government could enforce the norm despite constitutional violations. Consequence: black markets, decreased investment, and reduced consumer welfare.
- Unfair Taxes: If an expropriatory tax on inheritances violates constitutional principles of equity and proportionality (Article 31, fraction IV), each affected party would need to seek an amparo. Should district judges grant these, the government could appeal to a collateral tribunal that upholds the amparo. If the SCJN, with its loyalist ministers, sides with the government, consequences include diminished savings, investment, and capital flight.
- Expropriation of Retirement Savings: Should the government decide to expropriate workers’ retirement savings managed by Afores without compensation, each affected party would need to seek an amparo before a power-loyal judge. The likelihood of everyone obtaining an amparo is negligible, but if a case reaches the SCJN, servile ministers would validate the expropriation. Consequence: impoverished elderly.
- Contract Breaches: If company A sues company B for breach of contract before a commercial judge, but the judge owes his position to company A and rules against B, investment would plummet due to the lack of legal certainty.
- Monopolistic Practices: If company A engages in a monopolistic practice harming competitor C, the latter could file for breach of competition law before a specialized judge. However, if the “good people” chose a judge ignorant of market theory or beholden to the favored monopolist, the resulting verdict would stifle competition and diminish consumer welfare.
Gradually, we will experience the repercussions of this aberrant judicial reform. However, it is already evident that we are defenseless, our freedoms lost, and economic growth stunted.
