Indigenous rights defender elected head of top Mexican court
Hugo Aguilar, an Indigenous rights defender and former advisor to Mexico's Zapatista guerrilla movement, won election to become the head of the country's Supreme Court, official results showed Thursday.
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.
sem/mel/sms/bjt
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects Republican bid to bar some provisional ballots in Pennsylvania
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has rejected a Republican appeal and left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing people to cast provisional ballots when their mail-in votes are rejected for not following technical procedures in state law. The court released the decision Friday, after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications about orders that had been slated to be released Monday. A technological error also resulted in an opinion being posted early last year. The justices acted in an appeal filed by the Republican National Committee, the state GOP and the Republican-majority election board in Butler County. Pennsylvania's top court ruled last year that the county must count provisional ballots that were cast by two voters after they learned their mail-in ballots were voided because they arrived without mandatory secrecy envelopes. Pennsylvania Democrats had urged the court to stay out of the case.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'This is part of the game': Trump cuts out Musk
Donald Trump talked to a long list of media outlets on Friday to make it clear that he's not thinking about or talking to Elon Musk after their feud exploded into public view on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to sensitive data held by the Social Security Administration. Michael Steele, Brian Barrett, Nayyera Haq, and Stephen Cloobeck join Stephanie Ruhle for The 11th Hour Nightcap.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
