Indigenous rights defender elected head of top Mexican court
The change in the key post, long reserved for elite jurists, follows unprecedented elections on Sunday in which Mexico became the first country in the world to choose judges at all levels at the ballot box.
Aguilar, a constitutional law specialist and member of the Indigenous group Mixtec, is now one of the highest profile Indigenous leaders in Latin America.
During his campaign, he proclaimed "it's our turn" and denounced the "exclusion and abandonment" of native peoples.
Around 20 percent of Mexicans identify as Indigenous.
Aguilar was a legal advisor to the now demobilized Zapatistas during negotiations with the government following an armed uprising in 1994.
He has said Mexico's Indigenous peoples are owed a "a significant debt."
Aguilar worked at the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples under President Claudia Sheinbaum's predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador -- both of whom have criticized what they say is the elite's grip on the judiciary.
The trailblazing judicial elections have been controversial in the Latin American nation.
The overhaul was initiated by Lopez Obrador, who frequently clashed with the Supreme Court over whether his policy changes were unconstitutional
Despite confusion and low turnout -- with only about 13 percent of eligible voters participating -- Sheinbaum declared the election a success.
Her opponents, however, branded it a "farce" and warned it would consolidate the ruling party's power, as it already dominates both houses of Congress.
The majority of Mexico's Supreme Court justices quit over the judicial reforms last year and declined to stand for election.
Aguilar follows in the footsteps of Benito Juarez, Mexico's first Indigenous president who also led the Supreme Court from 1857 to 1858.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court
Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New York. Her lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. 'The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits,' Epner said. While uncommon, 'there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years,' Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings 'is of limited importance,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, 'because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement.' If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. MOUNTING PRESSURE Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called 'a very productive day.' The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases – about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year – and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. EPSTEIN'S DEAL Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but committed suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that 'the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.' In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. 'If the government can promise one thing and deliver another – and courts let it happen – that erodes the integrity of the justice system,' Markus told Reuters. 'This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word,' Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means 'no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district.' Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. 'There were many strange things about this deal,' Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. 'A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in,' Richman said of the Supreme Court justices. US Justice Department official meets Epstein associate Maxwell Read full story
eNCA
3 days ago
- eNCA
Proof of life: Tracking elusive Amazon group to save their land
BRASILIA - A ceramic pot and the shell of a turtle, once hunted for its meat, are the most recent traces of an Indigenous community thought to live deep in the north Brazilian Amazon. Archaeological finds like these keep turning up, and date back to at least 2009, with members of a neighbouring clan claiming to have caught glimpses of individuals who live in the Ituna/Itata region in Brazil's northern Para state. For now, the nameless, elusive people -- perhaps belonging to more than one group -- remain among dozens of so-called "uncontacted" communities believed to roam the world's biggest rainforest. "My sister-in-law told me: 'Over there! Over there!' And it was a little boy staring at me from up close," recounted Takamyi Asurini, an elder in Ita'aka -- an Indigenous village of about 300, whose accounts of close encounters have fed theories of the existence of uncontacted people in Ituna/Itata. Asurini showed AFP a scar on his ribs he said was the result of being shot with an arrow by an unknown person in the jungle. Such testimonies and the objects found are not considered proof of the existence of people in Ituna/Itata. But it is enough for the region to enjoy a provisional protected status meant to prevent invasions by miners, loggers and ranchers -- preserving both the forest and the people thought to live there. The area covers tens of thousands of hectares and is similar in size to Sao Paolo -- the biggest city in Latin America. It became one of the most overrun Indigenous territories in Brazil under former president Jair Bolsonaro, a backer of agro-industry on whose watch Amazon deforestation surged. Now, lobby groups want the Ituna/Itata region's protection to be made permanent, which would mean stricter land use rules and enforcement. - 'Historical neglect' - AFP | Carlos FABAL For this to happen, the government's National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (Funai) would have to send expeditions to look for undeniable proof of the group's existence. Part of the challenge is the dense Amazon jungle is home to rich, varied ecosystems that support migratory agriculture for Indigenous peoples, who may travel to hunt, fish and gather food seasonally. Under law, any searchers cannot make contact with them -- potentially putting them at risk of diseases they have no immunity to -- but are to look instead for footprints of their life in the forest. Brazil recognises 114 "uncontacted" Indigenous groups who live with no or minimal interaction with others. About a quarter are "confirmed," while for the rest -- like in Ituna/Itata -- there is "strong evidence" that they exist. For Luiz Fernandes, a member of umbrella group Coordination of the Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), there has been "historical neglect" of the issue by the state, which he says "recognises the possibility of the existence of these peoples but does not guarantee effective measures to protect the territory." Added Mita Xipaya, an Indigenous activist: "the state needs qualified records" to prove that an area hosts uncontacted people, "but for us it is different: we perceive them in nature, in the sounds we hear, their presences, sometimes their smells." - 'Taking care of the forest' - The Brazilian Amazon has lost nearly a third of its native vegetation since records began in 1988, according to environmental NGO Instituto Socioambiental -- except in Indigenous territories, where the figure is less than two percent. From 2019 to 2022, the Bolsonaro government suspended the provisional protection measures decreed for Ituna/Itata, prompting an invasion by land grabbers, turning it into the most deforested Indigenous area in Brazil. Though the protection was reinstated under his leftist successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the consequences persist, and miles-wide patches of devastated soil intersperse areas of green rainforest, AFP observed during a recent flyover. Brazil will in November host the COP30 UN climate conference in the Amazonian city of Belem under Lula, who has sought to position himself as a leader in forest preservation and the fight against global warming. "It's not just about taking care of the forest but also of the people who inhabit it, because it's through them that the forest remains standing," COIAB coordinator Toya Manchineri told AFP. by Carlos Fabal with Facundo Fernandez Barrio in Sao Paulo
TimesLIVE
4 days ago
- TimesLIVE
US appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship
A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time an appeals court has assessed the legality of Trump's order since the US Supreme Court in June curbed the power of lower court judges to enjoin that and other federal policies on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it nationally again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy. The 9th Circuit's majority in Wednesday's ruling said the Democratic-led states that had sued to block the policy — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — likewise still were entitled to a nationwide injunction as a more narrow order would not provide them 'complete relief'. 'The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen,' Washington attorney-general Nick Brown said in a statement. The Trump administration could either ask a wider panel of 9th Circuit judges to hear the case or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to have the final word in the litigation. 'We look forward to being vindicated on appeal,' said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. In a statement, she said the 9th Circuit misinterpreted the US constitution's 14th Amendment in reaching its decision. Trump signed the order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of his hardline approach towards immigration. Trump's order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys-general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violates the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognise that virtually anyone born in the US is a citizen. The constitution's 14th Amendment citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalised in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside'. The first judge to block Trump's directive was Seattle-based US District judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Republican president Ronald Reagan, who called it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. The 9th Circuit's ruling upheld his decision. US Circuit judge Ronald Gould, writing for Wednesday's majority, said Coughenour rightly concluded that Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the US. Gould said a geographically limited injunction would harm the four states by forcing them to overhaul their government benefits programmes to account for how people denied citizenship under Trump's order might move into them. 'It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the US,' Gould wrote. His opinion was joined by US Circuit judge Michael Hawkins, a fellow appointee of Democratic president Bill Clinton. US Circuit judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying in his view the Democratic-led states lacked standing to challenge Trump's order, as he warned of the risks of 'judicial overreach'.
