On June 1, 2025, Mexico held its first ever elections to replace the federal judicial branch, marking a transformative shift in how federal judges are selected. Despite domestic and international criticism and a low voter turnout, the National Electoral Institute (INE) has now confirmed the validity and legality of the results of all contested positions in the Supreme Court, the Electoral Court, and the Disciplinary Tribunal.1
This process dismantled the traditionally appointment-based Mexican federal judiciary in favor of direct elections. The number of Supreme Court justices was reduced from eleven to nine, and a new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal was established. As a result, the Mexican Supreme Court will reconfigure on September 1 with nine Justices taking office — three already serving and six elected for the first time. Judges for the Electoral Court and the Disciplinary Tribunal, along with half of the District Judges and of the Collegiate Circuit Court Judges nationwide, were also elected. The remaining positions in the judiciary are scheduled to be elected in 2027.
These elections followed a constitutional reform passed in September 2024, which was driven by former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador's longstanding criticism of corruption, opacity, and elitism within the judiciary. The reform was part of former President's Obrador's broader plan to democratize judicial institutions, especially as a response to Mexican federal courts having blocked several of his flagship projects — including the Tren Maya, the New Mexico City Airport, and the reform of the energy sector — all of which were eventually resumed and completed once his party (MORENA) secured a supermajority in Congress and amended the Constitution.
Despite the historic nature of the reform, voter turnout was strikingly low — estimated at just 12.8% — raising concerns about civic engagement and the legitimacy of the process, aggravated by the accusation of political actors distributing "cheat sheets" instructing people who to vote for. Analysts attributed the low voter participation to the complexity of judicial roles, limited public information about candidates, and the unfamiliarity of the electoral mechanism. The high percentage of null and blank ballots further underscored the lack of public engagement.
Who Will Be Sitting on the Mexican Supreme Court?
Candidates for the 2025 judicial elections were selected through a multi-stage process to balance political representation with public participation. Each branch of government — the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial — was permitted to nominate up to three candidates per contested position. These nominations were reviewed by the Senate and narrowed through a lottery system, ultimately producing a final list. The INE oversaw the process and issued ballots listing candidates by gender and legal specialization to promote transparency and parity. Notably, most of the winners in the contested positions were proposed by the Executive and the Legislative Branches, and not the Judiciary.
The newly composed Supreme Court of Mexico includes a mix of returning justices and newly appointed figures, reflecting a strong influence from the MORENA party and allies of former President López Obrador. Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, a Mixtec Indigenous lawyer with ties to López Obrador, will serve as Chief Justice. Returning justices Lenia Batres Guadarrama, Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, and Loretta Ortiz Ahlf are also perceived as aligned with MORENA. The new appointees include María Estela Ríos González, Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra, Irving Espinosa Betanzo, Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García, and Giovanni Azael Figueroa Mejía — all of whom are connected to the MORENA party, having served in various capacities under the previous administration. Their roles included serving as legal advisor to the former President, holding government positions in Congress on behalf of MORENA, and working as officers in the former administration's Attorney General's Office. The Court's composition signals a shift away from career judges.
Assessing the Implications of Mexico's 2024 Judicial Reform
The 2024 constitutional reform represents a profound reconfiguration of Mexico's judicial system. The reform aims at replacing the traditional appointment-based model with direct elections. However, critics argue that this shift risks politicizing the judiciary, weakening the separation of powers, and undermining the rule of law. While the creation of the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal introduces a new mechanism for internal oversight, its independence and effectiveness remain to be tested.
Another central component of the reform was the overhaul of the Amparo Act, which narrowed the scope of constitutional challenges. Most notably, the reform explicitly eliminated the possibility of interim and substantive relief with erga omnes effects: federal judges can no longer halt the application of a governmental act or a law for the general public. While this change only made explicit a longstanding principle, it was perceived as a limit to the judiciary's ability to act as a check on legislative and executive powers.
Additional amendments lowered the threshold for establishing binding precedent in the Supreme Court from eight to six votes and restricted the admissibility of amparo lawsuits against decisions issued by the newly created Judicial Administration Organ and the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, thereby restricting internal administrative and disciplinary decisions from judicial review. Institutionally, the reform dissolved the Federal Judicial Council and transferred its powers — including administrative appointments, training, and budgeting—to the new Judicial Administration Organ.
The 2025 judicial reform and elections have drawn sharp criticism from international observers and financial stakeholders. The Organization of American States (OAS), along with its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), issued a preliminary report expressing serious concerns about the integrity and implications of the process. The report highlights the alarmingly low voter turnout and widespread public confusion about the roles and qualifications of judicial candidates. It also warns of the potential for organized crime to influence judicial elections and cautions that the reform could undermine judicial independence and due process guarantees.
Comment
The reform has unsettled domestic and international investors, who fear that the politicization of the judiciary could compromise legal certainty and contract enforcement. The perceived threat of political interests swaying judicial decisions has raised red flags across the business community. Business associations have called for institutional safeguards to preserve judicial impartiality and ensure predictability in commercial litigation, warning that the erosion of judicial independence could jeopardize Mexico's attractiveness as a destination for investment and nearshoring.
As confidence in the Mexican judiciary seems to erode, investors operating in the country may increasingly turn to mechanisms that ensure the impartial and effective resolution of disputes. This dynamic is likely to accelerate the shift toward international arbitration with seats outside of Mexico, particularly in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and finance.
Footnote
1. The results for certain positions at the District Courts and Collegiate Circuit Courts have not yet been validated as the individuals who received the most votes failed to meet the eligibility criteria. At this stage, it remains unclear why those individuals were not disqualified earlier in the process.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
