Mexico's Supreme Court corrects vote record, denies altering sentence

Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) has issued a clarification regarding a correction made to the voting record of Minister President Hugo Aguilar Ortiz. The court stated that the amendment, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF), was made to ensure consistency between the court's sessions and its official documents, not to alter a final sentence.

“

That error in the registration of the vote was transferred to the official record published in the DOF, so, upon noticing the discrepancy, the corresponding certification was requested and issued, without altering the resolving part or the outcome of the sentence.

The controversy arose from a certification published on June 23, which specified Aguilar's vote in a constitutional challenge case (Action of Unconstitutionality 49/2025). An error by a former secretary general of agreements had initially reported Aguilar voting against the majority. However, video recordings and stenographic versions of the December 1, 2025, session showed Aguilar voted in favor and requested a concurring opinion.

The SCJN emphasized that the correction did not change the resolution or the outcome of the sentence. "Any interpretation that attributes malice to these actions lacks support and deviates from the facts, as the clarifications made were intended to guarantee full congruence between what happened in the public session and the content of the official records, which strengthens the legal certainty of this Plenary's actions," the court stated.

“

Any interpretation that attributes malice to these actions lacks support and deviates from the facts, as the clarifications made were intended to guarantee full congruence between what happened in the public session and the content of the official records, which strengthens the legal certainty of this Plenary's actions.

Despite the SCJN's explanation, some lawyers expressed concern on social media, accusing the court of undermining legal certainty. They questioned the review process and suggested that altering a published sentence, even for correction, was a serious issue. The SCJN maintains that its actions were purely procedural, aimed at maintaining accuracy and upholding the integrity of its judicial records.

“

Nobody reviews anything. And then they find it easy to alter a sentence that has already been signed and published. It's very serious, but not surprising. This 'new' Court, the Supreme Accordion, is a disaster.