Argentina's Government Officializes New Requirements for Supreme Court Judge Appointments

Argentina's government has officially revised the criteria for appointing Supreme Court judges, a move that significantly alters the selection process. Published via Decree 467/2026, the changes eliminate the public's ability to observe and challenge candidates before the executive branch. It also removes a recommendation for the President to consider gender diversity, specialty, and regional origin when proposing nominees.

“

the instances duplicated controls because the Senate already performs mandatory public hearings and receives observations during the treatment of the nominations.

The new regulations modify procedures established by decrees from 2003, which were put in place during Néstor Kirchner's administration. Previously, the government was required to publish the backgrounds of Supreme Court candidates and allow citizens, organizations, and universities to submit support or objections. Articles 3, 6, and 7 of the 2003 decree have been repealed, ending this administrative review stage.

Government officials stated that these public observation periods were redundant because the Senate already conducts mandatory public hearings and accepts observations during its review of nominees. They also cited a "duplication of administrative instances" within the Ministry of Justice, arguing that the Senate's process sufficiently ensures transparency and public participation. The changes are expected to drastically reduce the time it takes to appoint a justice.

“

there is a duplication of administrative instances (publication of backgrounds and the reception of citizen observations) within the Ministry of Justice.

Additionally, Decree 588/2003, which governed the selection of lower court judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, has been amended. Now, the composition of candidate lists will be published for only one day. Candidates must still submit sworn financial statements and information on business affiliations and clients from the past eight years, with a five-day window for these submissions. The government cited an "institutional crisis" due to numerous judicial vacancies, asserting that the previous procedures caused unnecessary delays.

“

there is an "institutional crisis" due to the large number of vacancies in the national and federal judiciary, and that the current procedures generated unnecessary delays because they repeated controls that the Senate later carries out.