Election of Mexico's first indigenous supreme court justice in 170 years raises hope, scepticism

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 (May 31, 2025) 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, Mr. 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 Mr. 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. Mr. 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 Mr. 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.' Mr. Aguilar was elected in Mexico's first judicial election, a process that's been criticised as weakening Mexico's system of checks and balances.
Mr. López Obrador and his party overhauled the judicial system the populist leader was long at odds.
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%.
Mr. 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 favour, 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. Mr. 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
Mr. 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 Mr. 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 (June 4, 2025) 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 defence attorneys in any legal process. But there remain significant outstanding issues like territorial disputes in cases of mega-projects.
Mr. 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 Mr. 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 organisation 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, Mr. Aguilar worked to carry out constitutional reforms recognising the basic rights of Mexico's Indigenous people.
Ms. 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 Mr. Aguilar would truly act as a voice for their community.
Mr. Aguilar's work came under fire when he joined the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples at the beginning of Mr. López Obrador's administration in 2018. It was then that he began to work on a mega-project known as the Maya Train, fiercely criticised 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.
Mr. 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 Mr. González Díaz met Mr. 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.
Mr. González Díaz's organisation 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 Mr. 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?'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

3 hours ago

• Time of India

US abortion rates rise three years after Dobbs' new ruling on Roe vs Wade, here's why

Three years after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade , the U.S. finds itself at the epicenter of a new abortion battle, one that's defying expectations and reshaping the strategies of both pro-life and pro-choice movements. Despite the pro-life victory in the courts, abortion rates have not dropped; instead, they've remained steady or even increased, raising provocative questions about the true impact of legal bans and the future of reproductive rights in America. The next big fight for abortion opponents is the organisation Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading provider and advocate of affordable sexual and reproductive health care, operates nearly 600 health centers across the country. The unexpected rise: Abortion rates defy pro-life predictions Contrary to pro-life hopes, the number of abortions in the U.S. has not declined post-Dobbs. Recent data from the Charlotte Lozier Institute shows over 1.1 million abortions occurred from July 2023 to June 2024, matching or exceeding pre-Dobbs levels. This estimate, based on the most comprehensive aggregation of clinic, hospital, and virtual provider data, highlights a resilient demand for abortion services even as legal landscapes shift. Researchers caution, however, that the true number may be even higher, as the U.S. lacks a federal abortion reporting mandate and medication abortions, especially those facilitated by international mail-order, are difficult to track with precision. The new battlefield: Pills, politics and laws The unexpected resilience of abortion rates is largely driven by the rise of medication abortion . With the FDA's approval for mail-order mifepristone, telehealth and shield laws have enabled access even in states with bans, and up to 20% of abortions in 2024 were provided via telehealth under such protections. This has allowed patients to bypass state restrictions, fueling what pro-life leaders call a "direct assault on the sovereignty of states." Live Events Pro-life advocates are now focusing on new priorities in response to these trends. Their big challenges, they say, include weakening Planned Parenthood, by targeting its funding streams. Restricting access to abortion pills remains a top objective, as does investing in supportive political candidates and ballot initiatives. Some pro-life lawmakers believe there is a strong chance of defunding Planned Parenthood through a broader reconciliation bill in Congress, which would block Medicaid funds for organizations performing abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life. Planned Parenthood, responding to these legislative moves, warned in a statement after the bill passed the Republican-led House in May that such provisions would cut off funding for a range of services beyond abortion, potentially forcing about 200 of its 600 locations to close. "If this bill passes, people will lose access to essential, often lifesaving care — cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing, and yes, abortion," the organization said. Meanwhile, other pro-choice groups are leveraging "shield laws" and ballot initiatives to protect and expand access, turning some states into abortion havens while others enforce near-total bans.

New Indian Express

5 hours ago

• New Indian Express

Bengal to borrow Rs 4K cr for 25% DA pay to staff

KOLKATA: The West Bengal government has started preparations to approach the market this week to borrow approximately Rs 4,300 crore to pay the 25% Dearness Allowance (DA) to state government employees and pensioners, following a Supreme Court order issued on May 16. The state requires around Rs 10,425 crore to comply with the apex court's order by June 27; or else it may face contempt of court proceedings. On the contrary, complying with the order will push the state into a larger debt trap with a total outstanding debt of Rs 7,06,531.61 crore, as per the revised budget estimate for 2024-25. When the Mamata Banerjee government came into power in May 2011, the state had a total debt of around Rs 1.89 lakh crore. Over the last 14 years, the debt has nearly quadrupled due to inadequate mobilisation of financial resources and a significant jump in expenditure related to various welfare schemes, including 'Kanyashri', and 'Lakshmir Bhandar'. According to political observers, these schemes paid a huge dividend to Mamata Banerjee's All India Trinamool Congress in the electoral politics both in Assembly and Lok Sabha polls by securing most of the women's vote. However, at the same time, these schemes, along with 'Swastha Sathi', somehow depleted the exchequer somehow.

Hindustan Times

6 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

6 years, no closure in child rape PIL: SC revives key issue it wrapped up days earlier

The Supreme Court last month disposed of a suo motu public interest petition it had initiated in 2019 to address the alarming rise in child rape cases across the country -- only for another bench to revive a key unresolved aspect of the same matter barely a week later, providing a telling commentary on institutional memory and follow-through. When it resurfaced in March 2021 under a new bench, the compensation issue, which was once central to the court's intervention, never came up again. (HT Photo) The petition, registered as 'In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents', was formally closed on May 15 by a bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi, as one of her last orders before retiring. Justice Trivedi retired on June 9 but her last working day was May 16, owing to an overseas trip But on May 23, another bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna admitted a new writ petition that brought back to centre stage a long-forgotten issue in the same case -- the framing and implementation of a dedicated compensation, rehabilitation, welfare and education scheme for Pocso (protection of children from sexual offences) victims. The near-immediate revival of the compensation issue, which was left unattended despite explicit directions by the top court five years ago, lays bare a systemic lapse -- a PIL that lasted six years was wrapped up without taking one of its most vital components to its logical conclusion. The 2019 suo motu proceedings were triggered by intense public concern and media reporting on rising incidents of sexual violence against children. On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court took cognisance and registered the case to formulate urgent judicial directions. By July 25, the court had appointed senior advocate V Giri as amicus curiae and directed the creation of exclusive Pocso courts across India to address delays in trials. Giri was assisted by advocate Uttar Babbar (now designated as a senior counsel). On December 16, 2019, noting an 'extremely high' pendency of Pocso cases in some states, the court issued state-specific directions. The bench, then headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, also expressed its intention to formulate a national compensation scheme for Pocso victims -- a task deemed necessary for their psychological and financial recovery. In March 2020, the court went a step further and summoned a joint secretary from the Ministry of Women and Child Development to assist in designing the scheme. 'On the next date of hearing, we shall consider the issue of framing a national scheme for payment of compensation to victims of offences under the Pocso Act,' the order read. But that next date took more than a year to arrive. Following Justice Gupta's retirement in May 2020, the matter fell into procedural limbo. When it resurfaced in March 2021 under a new bench, the compensation issue, which was once central to the court's intervention, never came up again. Over 15 hearings took place between March 2021 and May 2025, but not one order addressed the proposed scheme. Instead, the focus narrowed to timelines for investigation and trial under the Pocso Act. By the time Justice Trivedi's bench finally decided to close the matter on May 15, 2025, the compensation issue had effectively vanished from judicial radar. 'Since the timelines have been stipulated under the Pocso Act... the same must be adhered to as far as possible,' the May 15 order recorded, urging Union and state governments to create more exclusive Pocso courts and sensitise investigating officials. 'Subject to the above, the suo moto proceedings are hereby closed.' On May 23, just eight days after the disposal, the Supreme Court admitted a fresh writ petition filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance, that pointedly noted the unfinished business of the 2019 case. Senior counsel Pragyan Pradip Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that while the Registry of the Supreme Court had indeed drafted a 'Scheme for Compensation, Rehabilitation, Welfare and Education of POCSO Victims, 2019' pursuant to earlier orders, the scheme was neither discussed nor adopted by the Union government or the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The new petition now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Union government and NALSA to formally notify and implement a compensation framework tailored to the needs of child victims of sexual abuse. It also seeks immediate disbursement of compensation to individual victims already identified, as well as uniform implementation of the existing NALSA 2018 scheme in the interim. Justice Nagarathna's bench has issued notice to the Union of India, NALSA and the Ministry of Women and Child Development, with the case now slated for further hearing on August 18, 2025. The swift succession of the two orders, one closing the book and the other reopening a forgotten chapter, highlights the ironies and inefficiencies that can sometimes plague long-drawn PILs in the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, the revival of the issue by a new bench not only re-emphasises its importance but also underscores the need for institutional continuity in PIL monitoring, especially in cases driven by the court's own conscience (suo motu).