Introduction
In recent weeks, the legal community has taken notice of unusual judicial precedents published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación. These precedents, possibly driven by a progressive ideology or implicit political intentions, deviate from the typical legal language and technique that characterize Mexico’s judicial criterion interpretation system.
Typical Judicial Precedents
Normally, appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation issue precedents addressing specific legal aspects, interpreting concrete legal dispositions or even phrases from particular article sections. These precedents guide the application of such interpretations in similar cases.
Consequently, isolated theses and jurisprudence are usually drafted in highly specialized legal language.
Purpose of Systemetization
The primary goal of precedent systematization is to standardize legal interpretation criteria generated organically by the Judicial Power, ensuring justice is applied reasonably consistently for all parties involved. To achieve this, criteria must be presented clearly, objectively, and technically, especially since their main recipients are judges who apply them and lawyers who use them to strengthen their legal arguments or anticipate the direction of rulings.
Recent Deviations
Despite the above, recent precedents have noticeably diverged from these guidelines.
Example 1: Dilemma Ethical Consideration
An example is the Tenth Circuit Administrative College’s thesis (registration 2030689), published on July 4, which addressed a property industrial dispute over a design mark’s use in candy packaging. It asserted that the ethical “dilemma” related to children’s rights should be considered alongside the main case.
This precedent has been widely criticized by legal operators, as law is inherently separate from ethics and morality. Judges’ roles are to interpret and apply legal norms, not analyze ethical or moral standards, which lose relevance once legislated and transformed into legal orders.
Example 2: Abstract Language on Linguistic Performance
Another example is the First Administrative College’s digital registration 2030641, published on June 27. The First Administrative College of the Second Circuit determined that “language has a performative character that plays an essential role in constructing and deconstructing legal and social realities.” Unlike other precedents, this one contains almost abstract language with little concrete content and no clear juridical application. It’s part of a package of 7 theses related to LGBTIQ+ community rights, published coincidentally at the end of Pride Month for this community.
Implications and Concerns
While this collaboration does not question the material scope of “ethical rights” for children or the debate surrounding inclusive language use related to the LGBTIQ+ community, it cannot deny the implicit political connotation in publishing such precedents. This contrasts sharply with their limited juridical contribution, undermining the nature and purposes of judicial precedents.
Jurisprudence aims to systematize legal interpretation, providing certainty for those seeking justice. It should not be used as a tool to express political or ethical opinions, nor as a campaign instrument, especially now that judicial positions will be elected.
Key Questions and Answers
- What are judicial precedents? Judicial precedents, or jurisprudence, are interpretations and rulings by courts that establish legal principles to guide future decisions on similar cases.
- Why are they typically written in specialized language? They use highly specialized language to clearly, objectively, and technically present criteria for consistent application by judges and lawyers.
- What are the concerns with recent precedents? Recent precedents have deviated from typical legal language and technique, incorporating abstract concepts and apparent political undertones instead of providing clear juridical guidance.
- What is the role of judicial precedents? Judicial precedents aim to systematize legal interpretation, offering certainty for those seeking justice. They should not be used as a platform for expressing political or ethical opinions.
