Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares181 Views

    Mexico Passes Bill Barring Legal Challenges to Constitutional Changes

    by

    The bill has drawn criticism from legal scholars who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters. Mexico’s lower house of Congress approved sweeping new measures on Wednesday that would prevent legal challenges to constitutional amendments, allowing lawmakers to reshape the country’s charter without any judicial review — even from the Supreme Court.The bill, which was already passed by the Senate last week, has drawn criticism from legal scholars and human rights experts, who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters and hand the ruling Morena party seemingly unchecked power to pass profound changes to the laws governing the nation.Most state legislatures are expected to approve the measure in the coming days, paving the way for the president to sign it into law.The move comes at a tense moment for Mexico, in which the major branches of government barreling toward open conflict over the fundamental makeup of the judicial system and the role it should play in the country’s democracy.“This reform, if it passes, does place us in a context of an exercise of unlimited power,” said Guadalupe Salmorán Villar, a researcher on global rule of law and constitutional democracy based in Mexico City. “It’s an overt attempt by the federal government, with the support of the large congressional majority of Morena and its allies, to politically subjugate the judiciary.”Olga Sánchez Cordero, a Morena lawmaker, said that while the initiative would bar courts from weighing in on the content of constitutional amendments, it would not prohibit challenges on procedural grounds. Until now, she said, the Constitution has not been clear on how changes to the charter could be revised, but now there would be “a clear, explicit, unequivocal mechanism” for evaluating them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares190 Views

      in Elections

      8 Supreme Court Justices in Mexico to Resign Ahead of Contentious Election

      by

      All but three of the country’s Supreme Court justices announced they would quit rather than partake in the controversial elections mandated by a judicial overhaul.In a series of terse resignation letters released Wednesday, eight of Mexico’s 11 Supreme Court justices said they would step down from their posts instead of participating in a contentious election of thousands of judges next year. The justices will all serve the remainder of their terms, most of which conclude in August.The announcements were the latest volley in an ongoing battle over a judicial overhaul, passed by the ruling party and its allies in September, that promises to upend the system by which Mexico’s judges are chosen and how they operate.The resignations follow a spate of attacks on the courts by President Claudia Sheinbaum and prominent members of her Morena party, who have said the response to the overhaul by the country’s justices is motivated by their desire to protect their own privileges. “This is a political message being sent not just by the Supreme Court, but the entire judiciary,” said Fernanda Caso, a political analyst in Mexico City. “These resignations and decisions not to participate, as a matter of dignity, are a response to the attacks and the way they have been treated.”Among other changes, the redesign of the judiciary requires that all of the nation’s judges be elected and will subject them to review by a disciplinary tribunal made up of elected officials, who will have the power to investigate and impeach judges.Supporters say the measure will help curb corruption within the judicial system. Critics say it will undermine judicial independence and give the Morena party control over a key check on its power. It has been met with more than 500 legal challenges by federal judges and other critics, some of whom say it violates the Constitution.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

      by

      As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek to develop legal arguments that determine which votes count, and therefore who emerges as the winner.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Kentucky Sheriff Arrested in Shooting Death of Judge

      by

      The police say a sheriff shot District Judge Kevin Mullins inside the courthouse on Thursday afternoon before turning himself in.The sheriff of a rural eastern Kentucky county walked into a courthouse on Thursday afternoon and shot and killed a district judge in his chambers after an argument, the police said.Mickey Stines, 43, the sheriff in Letcher County, turned himself in after shooting Judge Kevin Mullins and was charged with first-degree murder, Trooper Matt Gayheart of the Kentucky State Police said at a news conference on Thursday evening.The shooting happened at about 2:55 p.m. inside the Letcher County Courthouse in Whitesburg, a city in southeastern Kentucky.The sheriff was taken to a local jail and had been cooperative with investigators, Trooper Gayheart said.“This community is small in nature, and we’re all shook,” the trooper said.Judge Mullins, 54, suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene, Trooper Gayheart said.Investigators were interviewing witnesses who were in the building at the time of the shooting. The police were still trying to determine what had led up to the argument.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico’s Contentious Judiciary Overhaul Becomes Law

      by

      Going forward, Mexican voters will now elect judges at every level, dramatically restructuring the third branch of government.Mexico passed into law on Sunday a constitutional amendment remaking its entire judiciary, marking the most far-reaching overhaul of a country’s court system ever carried out by a major democracy.The results demonstrate the exceptional influence of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, who championed the legislation. The victory of his allies in June elections afforded them substantial legislative majorities to advance the contentious proposal in the leader’s final weeks in office. On the eve of Mexico’s Independence Day, the measure was published in the government’s official gazette, making it law.The law shifts the judiciary from an appointment-based system, largely grounded in training and qualifications, to one where voters elect judges and there are fewer requirements to run. That puts Mexico onto an untested course, the consequences of which are difficult to foresee.“Now it’s different,” Mr. López Obrador said in a video posted on social media on Sunday night in which his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, was seated next to him. “Now it’s the people who rule, the people who decide.”Roughly 7,000 judges, from the chief justice of the Supreme Court down to those at local courts, will have to run for office under the new system. The changes will be put into effect gradually, with a large portion of the judiciary up for election in 2025 and the rest in 2027.The government said the overhaul was needed to modernize the courts and to instill trust in a system plagued by graft, influence peddling and nepotism. Ms. Sheinbaum, takes office on Oct. 1 and has fully backed the plan.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Contention Over Mexico’s Plan to Elect Judges, Explained

      by

      A sweeping change would have thousands of judges, from local courtrooms all the way up to the Supreme Court, elected instead of appointed.A landmark shift unfolded in Mexico on Thursday as a majority of its 32 states approved an overhaul of the country’s judicial system. In a monumental change, thousands of judges would be elected instead of appointed, from local courtrooms to the Supreme Court.The measure could produce one of the most far-reaching judicial overhauls of any major democracy and has already provoked deep division in Mexico.Nevertheless, the legislation’s passage into law was practically a foregone conclusion by Thursday as President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced his intent to publish the bill on Sunday, on the eve of Mexico’s Independence Day.“It is a very important reform,” Mr. López Obrador, whose six-year tenure ends at the end of the month, said during his daily news conference. “It’s reaffirming that in Mexico there is an authentic democracy where the people elect their representatives.”The departing president and his Morena party have championed remaking the court system as a way to curtail graft, influence-peddling and nepotism and to give Mexicans a greater voice. Mr. López Obrador’s successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, will take office on Oct. 1 and has fully backed the plan.But court workers, judges, legal scholars and opposition leaders argue that it would inadequately address issues such as corruption and instead bolster Mr. López Obrador’s political movement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      La Cámara de Diputados en México aprueba en lo general la propuesta del presidente en materia judicial

      by

      Fue el primer paso hacia un sistema en el que casi todos los jueces del país serían elegidos por voto popular. El proyecto pasa ahora al Senado.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Los legisladores de la Cámara de Diputados del Congreso de México aprobaron el miércoles en la madrugada en lo general una amplia propuesta para rediseñar todo el poder judicial, el primer paso para cambiar el país a un sistema en el que casi todos los jueces sean elegidos por voto popular para el cargo.La votación avanza una de las revisiones judiciales de mayor alcance de las últimas décadas en cualquier gran democracia, lo que eleva las tensiones en México sobre si las medidas mejorarán el funcionamiento de los tribunales del país o politizarán el poder judicial a favor del partido gobernante Morena y sus aliados. En el sistema actual, los jueces se nombran en función de una formación y unas calificaciones especiales.Ahora, la Cámara de Diputados tendrá que discutir más de 600 detalles del proyecto de ley antes de que pase al Senado, donde al bloque gobernante solo le falta un escaño para alcanzar la mayoría calificada, aunque se espera que la medida sea aprobada.El martes, cuando los legisladores se reunieron para discutir la propuesta, ocho de los 11 ministros de la Suprema Corte votaron a favor de suspender las sesiones durante el resto de la semana en apoyo a los empleados judiciales en huelga del alto tribunal, que iniciaron un paro durante la semana, con lo que se sumaron a los cientos de trabajadores judiciales y jueces federales de todo México que iniciaron una huelga indefinida el mes pasado por los cambios propuestos.Con la esperanza de retrasar la votación, los trabajadores en huelga formaron una cadena humana para bloquear el acceso a la Cámara de Diputados. Pero los legisladores cambiaron de sede y prosiguieron con el debate, que a menudo se convirtió en un tenso intercambio de acusaciones.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Tries to Move Hush-Money Case to Federal Court Before Sentencing

      by

      The long-shot request, which the former president made Thursday night, is an attempt to avoid sentencing in his criminal case, scheduled for Sept. 18.Former President Donald J. Trump sought to move his Manhattan criminal case into federal court on Thursday, filing the unusual request three months after he was convicted in state court.The long-shot bid marks Mr. Trump’s latest effort to stave off his sentencing in state court in his hush-money trial, in which he was convicted of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.He is scheduled to receive his punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when he will square off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump — the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election — and voters located far beyond Manhattan,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, wrote in the filing.Their filing came even as the Trump legal team is awaiting the result of a separate effort to postpone the sentencing; it opened a second front that could complicate the first.On Aug. 15, Mr. Trump asked the state court judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, to delay the sentencing until after Election Day. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that they needed more time to challenge his conviction on the basis of a recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity for official acts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      UK Approves Early Release for Thousands of Prisoners to Ease Overcrowding

      by

      The Labour government, which took power this past week, said it had been forced into the move because previous Conservative administrations had let the issue fester.In one of its first big decisions, Britain’s new Labour government on Friday announced the early release of thousands of prisoners, blaming the need to do so on a legacy of neglect and underinvestment under the Conservative Party, which lost last week’s general election after 14 years in power.With the system nearly at capacity and some of the country’s aged prison buildings crumbling, the plan aims to avoid an overcrowding crisis that some had feared might soon explode.But with crime a significant political issue, the decision is a sensitive one and the prime minister, Keir Starmer, a former chief prosecutor, lost no time in pointing to his predecessors to explain the need for early releases.“We knew it was going to be a problem, but the scale of the problem was worse than we thought, and the nature of the problem is pretty unforgivable in my book,” Mr. Starmer said, speaking ahead of the decision while attending a NATO summit in Washington.There were, he told reporters, “far too many prisoners for the prison places that we’ve got,” adding, “I can’t build a prison in the first seven days of a Labour government — we will have to have a long-term answer to this.”Under the new government’s plan, those serving some sentences in England and Wales would be released after serving 40 percent of their sentence, rather than at the midway point at which many are freed “on license,” a kind of parole.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More