“Chronicle of a failed reform”: Retired justice Javier Laynez says Mexico’s new Supreme Court is yielding to political power

Javier Laynez Potisek describes Mexico’s new Supreme Court as “the chronicle of a failed reform” one year after the first court elected at the ballot box began operating.

In an interview with Ciro Gómez Leyva on Grupo Fórmula, the retired justice said the court had functioned as “an operator for the authorities.” He criticized the attendance of the entire plenary at President Claudia Sheinbaum’s presentation of her second government report at the National Palace.

“

the chronicle of a failed reform

“The attendance of the entire plenary at an event of the president shows tremendous imprudence that they did not measure, or it really means that the loss of legitimacy they carry from the outset no longer matters,” Laynez said. In his view, the court no longer appears to need to preserve even the appearance of independence from political power.

Laynez argued that the court will become irrelevant because the governing bloc’s electoral overrepresentation leaves parliament with few, or no, opposition groups able to reach the one-third threshold required to challenge laws through constitutional actions. He also said constitutional disputes would become less frequent because constitutional bodies had disappeared, removing two important checks on power.

“

an operator for the authorities

He expressed particular concern about the Judicial Discipline Tribunal, which evaluates the performance of district judges and circuit magistrates. Laynez said disciplinary bodies should punish clear misconduct, such as workplace harassment, sexual harassment or accepting money in a case. They should not punish judges for matters of legal judgment.

“This creates uncertainty because addressing questions of judgment not only harms autonomy, it also inhibits the exercise of judicial functions, which produces submission or the co-option of judges,” he said.

“

This creates uncertainty because addressing questions of judgment not only harms autonomy, it also inhibits the exercise of judicial functions, which produces submission or the co-option of judges.