On August 14, 2025, the Inter-American Dialogue’s Mexico Program hosted the online event ‘After the Vote—What’s Next for Mexico’s Judiciary?’, bringing together legal and policy experts to assess what questions about the composition, legitimacy, and autonomy of Mexico’s Supreme Court remain ahead of the new term in September. The discussion explored how changes to Mexico’s judicial landscape may impact U.S.-Mexico relations—particularly in areas of bilateral cooperation related to the rule of law, economic integration, and democratic governance. The conversation also centered on potential implications for legal certainty, investment, and the business climate in Mexico.
María Calderón, senior associate of the Mexico Program, moderated the event, which framed the conversation around the broader implications of electing judicial officials through democratic vote. Calderón emphasized that Mexico’s June 1 federal judicial elections—covering the Supreme Court, the Discipline Court, and hundreds of other posts—represent the most sweeping transformation of the justice system since the country’s democratic transition. She noted that these reforms raise fundamental questions about checks and balances and could have far-reaching consequences for rule of law, governance, economic integration, investment, and security cooperation with the United States.
Carlota Ramos, deputy division head in the Office of the President of Mexico, stressed that Mexico is experiencing institutional uncertainty, not collapse, cautioning against alarmism. She acknowledged that the reform is controversial and raises legitimate concerns about judicial independence and institutional design but argued that disruption should not be equated with decay. Instead, this is a moment for vigilance from civil society, the judiciary, and international partners. Ramos underscored three points: first, the precedent system—the backbone of legal certainty—remains intact, ensuring contracts, regulations, and constitutional protections continue to be enforceable. Second, the election gave citizens a new democratic responsibility to demand transparency and accountability. Third, new institutions and expectations, such as the judicial discipline tribunal, create tools to strengthen oversight. She emphasized that the challenge is whether actors step up to monitor and shape outcomes. Ultimately, she urged focusing on the opportunities within the legal framework to reinforce judicial integrity, economic certainty, and U.S.-Mexico cooperation, without minimizing the risks ahead.
Adriana García, expert advisor at the Rule of Law Lab, NYU Law, situated Mexico’s judicial reform within a broader context of executive–judiciary conflict and weakening institutional checks and balances. She noted that the reform originated in repeated clashes between the Supreme Court and the executive, amplified by presidential rhetoric accusing judges of corruption. García emphasized that the reform did not occur in isolation, but alongside congressional measures to dismantle independent agencies—including the transparency and data protection body and the antitrust authority—further eroding oversight mechanisms.
On the reform itself, García highlighted that it introduces direct popular election of judges while dismissing roughly 7,000 sitting judges, making Mexico the only country to attempt such a mass replacement of its judiciary. She acknowledged that the reform responds to real demands for accountability but warned that elections alone cannot ensure impartiality and risk undermining judicial independence. Citing the Organization of American States’ electoral observation mission, she stressed concerns that elected judges may lack the necessary qualifications, with the model ultimately weakening transparency, impartiality, effectiveness, and independence of the judiciary.
Pedro Salazar, researcher of the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas at UNAM, described Mexico as entering a period of deep institutional uncertainty with the judicial reform. He explained that while strengthening the judiciary was necessary, particularly at the state level where historical shortcomings remain severe, the federal judiciary had been functioning adequately, with the Supreme Court consolidating itself as a true constitutional court. Salazar argued that the reform was a serious mistake, replacing a system that was working reasonably well with one of unknown consequences. He warned that in the coming months the Supreme Court will operate very differently, sending a troubling message for constitutional governance and upsetting the balance between branches of government.
A central theme of the discussion was how the new judicial reform reshapes the balance of powers and the composition of Mexico’s Supreme Court. Panelists noted that while the reform responded to demands for accountability, the process of candidate selection—dominated by the presidency and its legislative majority—undermined judicial independence from the outset. Some warned that justices starting their terms on September 1 are likely to share political and ideological affinities with the current administration, diminishing the separation of powers.
On the Supreme Court’s new structure, participants diverged. Some argued that the reduction to nine members and the elimination of specialized chambers will weaken deliberations, create heavier caseloads, and risk politicizing precedent. Others emphasized that the binding precedent system remains intact, providing continuity and legal certainty even under new leadership. While critics feared a politicized court with diminished technical rigor, others highlighted opportunities for institutional renewal and public oversight through greater visibility of justices and disciplinary bodies.
The panel also examined implications for Mexico’s business climate and U.S.-Mexico cooperation. Several participants predicted a shift toward alternative dispute resolution and international arbitration, as companies may avoid a politicized Supreme Court. Others underscored that contracts and regulatory frameworks remain enforceable under precedent, offering investors continuity. On security and anti-corruption, opinions split: while some warned that politicized judicial appointments could entrench executive influence or organized crime, others argued that public scrutiny and civic pressure could turn visibility into a new lever for accountability.
The conversation closed with recognition of both risks and opportunities. Panelists agreed that Mexico’s judiciary is undergoing a profound transformation, with uncertain consequences for governance, investment, and bilateral cooperation. Whether the reform leads to greater accountability or deeper politicization will depend on how institutions, civil society, and international partners engage with this new judicial landscape.
