logo
Election of Mexico's first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in 170 years raises hope and skepticism

Election of Mexico's first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in 170 years raises hope and skepticism

Yahoo05-06-2025
MEXICO CITY (AP) — In his campaign for Mexico's Supreme Court, Hugo Aguilar sent a simple message: He would be the one to finally give Indigenous Mexicans a voice at one of the highest levels of government.
'It's our turn as Indigenous people ... to make decisions in this country,' he said in the lead up to Sunday's first judicial elections in Mexican history.
Now, the 52-year-old Aguilar, a lawyer from the Mixtec people in Mexico's southern Oaxaca state, will be the first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in nearly 170 years in the Latin American nation, according to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He could lead the high court. The last Indigenous justice to do so was Mexican hero and former President Benito Juárez, who ran the court from 1857 to 1858.
For some, Aguilar has become a symbol of hope for 23 million Indigenous people long on the forgotten fringes of Mexican society. But others fiercely criticize his past, and worry that instead of representing them, he will instead stand with the ruling party, Morena, that ushered him onto the court.
Top vote getter in controversial contest
Supporters cite Aguilar's long history of working on Indigenous rights, while critics say that more recently he's helped push the governing party's agenda, including former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's massive infrastructure projects, at the expense of Indigenous communities. Aguilar's team said he would not comment until after official results were confirmed.
'He's not an Indigenous candidate,' said Francisco López Bárcenas, a distinguished Mixtec lawyer from the same region as Aguilar who once worked with him decades ago. He applauded the election of an Indigenous justice, but said 'He's an Indigenous man who became a candidate.'
Aguilar was elected in Mexico's first judicial election, a process that's been criticized as weakening Mexico's system of checks and balances.
López Obrador and his party overhauled the judicial system the populist leader was long at odds with. Instead of appointing judges through experience, voters elected judges to 2,600 federal, state and local positions. But the vote was marked by a very low voter turnout, about 13%.
López Obrador and his successor and protege President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed the election would cut corruption in the courts. Judges, watchdogs and political opposition called it a blatant attempt to use the party's political popularity to stack courts in their favor, and gain control of all three branches of Mexico's government.
While votes are still being counted in many races, the tally of results for nine Supreme Court justices came in first. The vast majority of the justices hold strong ties to the ruling party, handing Morena potential control over the high court. Aguilar's name was among those that appeared on pamphlets suggesting which candidates to vote for, which electoral authorities are investigating.
A focus on Indigenous rights
Aguilar scooped up more than 6 million votes, more than any other candidate, including three who currently serve on the Supreme Court. The victory opened the possibility of Aguilar not just serving on the court, but leading it.
Critics attributed his win to Mexico's highly popular president repeatedly saying she wanted an Indigenous judge on the Supreme Court in the lead up to the election. On Wednesday she said she was thrilled he was on the court.
'He is a very good lawyer,' she said. 'I have the privilege of knowing his work not just on Indigenous issues, but in general. He has wide knowledge and is a modest and simple man.'
The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that, for example, establish the right of Indigenous people to be assisted by interpreters who speak their native language and defense attorneys in any legal process. But there remain significant outstanding issues like territorial disputes in cases of mega-projects.
Aguilar began his career in Oaxaca's capital, working for SERmixe, an organization advocating for Indigenous rights as a law student in his mid-20s.
Sofía Robles, a member of the organization remembers young Aguilar being passionate, choosing to be a lawyer to advocate for Indigenous communities often living in poverty and out of reach of the law.
'He had this conviction, and there were many things he wouldn't conform with,' 63-year-old Robles said. 'From the very beginning, he knew where he came from.'
Despite coming from a humble working-class family, he would work for the organization for free after his law classes. He later worked there as a lawyer on agrarian issues for 13 years. After the Zapatista uprising in 1994, a guerrilla movement fighting for Indigenous rights in southern Mexico, Aguilar worked to carry out constitutional reforms recognizing the basic rights of Mexico's Indigenous people.
Robles said she believes he will bring that fight she saw in him to the Supreme Court.
'He gives us hope,' she said. 'Aguilar is going to be an example for future generations.'
Ties to governing party
But others like Romel González Díaz, a member of the Xpujil Indigenous Council in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, cast doubt on if Aguilar would truly act as a voice for their community.
Aguilar's work came under fire when he joined the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples at the beginning of López Obrador's administration in 2018. It was then that he began to work on a mega-project known as the Maya Train fiercely criticized by environmentalists, Indigenous communities and even the United Nations.
The train, which runs in a rough loop around the Yucatan peninsula, has deforested large swathes of jungle and irreversibly damaged an ancient cave system sacred to Indigenous populations there. Aguilar was tasked with investigating the potential impacts of the train, hearing the concerns of local Indigenous communities and informing them of the consequences.
That was when González Díaz met Aguilar, who arrived with a handful of government officials, who sat down for just a few hours with his small community in Xpujil, and provided sparse details about the negative parts of the project.
González Díaz's organization was among many to take legal action against the government in an attempt to block train construction for not properly studying the project's impacts.
The environmental destruction left in the project's wake is something that continues to fuel his distrust for Aguilar.
'The concern with Hugo is: Who is he going to represent?' González Díaz said. 'Is he going to represent the (Morena) party or is he going to represent the Indigenous people?'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republican-led House committee postpones Ghislaine Maxwell deposition
Republican-led House committee postpones Ghislaine Maxwell deposition

NBC News

time13 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Republican-led House committee postpones Ghislaine Maxwell deposition

Congressional testimony by Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator and confidant Ghislaine Maxwell previously scheduled for mid-August will be postponed until at least October, the chair of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee indicated in a letter Friday. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in the letter obtained by NBC News that the committee would consider next steps after the Supreme Court in late September decides whether it will review Maxwell's conviction as a sex offender. The committee subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition last month and scheduled it for Aug. 11, citing the "immense public interest and scrutiny" surrounding her case and Epstein's. In Friday's letter, Comer reiterated his desire to interview Maxwell, calling her testimony "vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death." "These investigative efforts may be used to inform potential legislation to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations," he wrote. Maxwell's lawyers, David Oscar Markus and Melissa Madrigal, said in a statement they "appreciate the Committee's willingness to delay" the deposition and "will continue to engage with Congress in good faith to find a way for Ms. Maxwell to share her information without compromising her constitutional rights." Maxwell's attorneys previously indicated that she planned to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights during the deposition unless the committee granted her immunity, telling Comer in a letter on Tuesday that absent the legal protection Maxwell's testimony "could compromise her constitutional rights, prejudice her legal claims, and potentially taint a future jury pool." The Oversight Committee in its letter Friday said it remains "unwilling" to grant Maxwell congressional immunity, but will "continue to engage in good faith negotiations" regarding the particulars of the deposition. Maxwell for months has been pleading with the Supreme Court to overturn her 2021 conviction on federal sex trafficking charges and subsequent 20-year prison sentence, arguing that her conviction violated a non-prosecution agreement prosecutors in Florida made with Epstein in 2007 that extended to several of his co-conspirators. Federal prosecutors have argued that the 2007 agreement applies only in Florida, where it was reached, and not New York, where Maxwell's 2021 trial took place. The federal judge who oversaw that trial, Judge Alison Nathan, agreed. The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it would consider whether to review Maxwell's case during a private conference on Sept. 29. The Oversight Committee's subpoena for Maxwell was sent when the Trump administration was coming under increasing pressure to disclose more information related to Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death by suicide has sparked conspiracy theories for years, some of which have been promoted by administration officials and Trump allies. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell and her attorney last week for an interview that spanned nine hours across two days. The Justice Department official has made no public statements about what Maxwell said during their meeting. On Friday, Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas that only houses women, unlike the Florida facility where she was previously held, which houses both men and women. Trump, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi, had pledged to release all files pertaining to the investigation, including a purported "client list" of people who benefited from Epstein's crimes. In a stunning about-face last month, the Justice Department released a memo outlining its decision to cease additional disclosures while dismissing several conspiracy theories related to the case. The memo roiled Trump's base and proved to be a rare point of contention between the president and his supporters, particularly as additional news reports emerged highlighting Trump and Epstein's past relationship. Hours after the Wall Street Journal reported last month that Trump wrote a letter to Epstein in 2003 with a drawing of a naked woman, Trump directed Bondi to seek the release of "pertinent" grand jury testimony from Epstein and Maxwell's cases. A federal judge in Florida denied the request, while another in New York has sought additional information from the government before making a ruling.

Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act

CNN

time13 minutes ago

  • CNN

Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.

Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act

CNN

time26 minutes ago

  • CNN

Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store