- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Extension of court president's term unlawful: Supreme Court of Mexico

Extension of court president's term unlawful: Supreme Court of Mexico Upholding the reform decree meant Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea would remain president until 2024 The National Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) has declared the two-year extension of court president and federal council members' term as unconstitutional. The highest court in...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Extension of court president's term unlawful: Supreme Court of Mexico
Upholding the reform decree meant Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea would remain president until 2024
The National Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) has declared the two-year extension of court president and federal council members' term as unconstitutional.
The highest court in Mexico held that the term extension violated the Mexican Constitution, which established the procedures for appointing the court's president and council members and set forth the term limits for these judiciary members. It also provides constitutional supremacy principles and calls for judicial autonomy and independence.
Pursuant to the court's ruling, the judicial officials' terms must end on the date determined upon their appointment. Consequently, the current Supreme Court President Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea would complete his four-year term on December 31, 2022. But if the court had upheld the reform decree, Zaldívar would have remained president until 2024.
Mexico's Senate had voted to extend the president's term in April, seeking to combat nepotism and corruption. The Senate passed the reform decree in an 80 to 25 vote.
However, the National Action Party (PAN) leaders had cautioned that permitting Congress to extend a judicial term could create a precedent to extend the president's term. Some political leaders called on Zaldívar to declare the reform decree that would extend his term, unconstitutional.
Zaldívar agreed and joined the court's decision.