World
Mexico’s Obrador set to enact divisive judicial reforms: What happens next?
Mexico’s President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is expected to enact controversial judicial reforms on Sunday, just ahead of Mexico’s Independence Day celebrations.
The reforms have sparked mixed reactions. Supporters argue they will make judges more accountable and praise the opportunity for the public to vote for those responsible for delivering justice. Critics contend this undermines the nation’s system of checks and balances by eroding the independence of the judiciary.
Here’s what we know as Mexico prepares to implement the reforms.
What is the main purpose of Mexico’s judicial reforms?
The law aims to transform the judiciary from an appointment-based system, primarily focused on their training and qualifications, to one where judges are elected by voters.
According to the government, the main goal of these reforms is to eliminate corruption from Mexico’s judiciary and ensure that it responds to the will of the people.
A bill to bring about the changes was approved by two-thirds of the upper house of parliament on Wednesday, following a contentious all-night debate. The reforms were approved by the lower house earlier this month.
All judges, both federal and state, from the lower rank to the Supreme Court, will be elected by citizens. There are nearly 7,000 positions in total.
The requirements to become a judge have also been reduced.
A law degree and five years of experience are sufficient for all judges except for those serving on the Supreme Court, where 10 years experience is required.
The reforms will also replace professional exams that are currently used to evaluate candidates. The new reform requires good grades and letters of recommendation.
The candidates must provide five letters from neighbours, colleagues or others vouching for their suitability for the role. The candidates are also required to submit an essay of three pages where they justify the reasons for their application.
The first election, covering about half of the judges, is expected to take place in June 2025. The rest should coincide with the regular elections of 2027. However, many details on how the voting will be organised are still unclear.
When these reforms take place, current judges – approximately 7,000 of them – will lose their positions but will then have the opportunity to run as candidates. However, many of the newly elected judges could step into specialised courtrooms they have never previously encountered, resulting in a potentially very challenging role.
How are judges currently selected in Mexico?
Judges currently advance to positions in higher courts through periodic reviews.
For the Supreme Court, the upper house of parliament selects its members from a shortlist proposed by the president.
“It is a very important reform,” Lopez Obrador said on Thursday. “It reaffirms that in Mexico there is a true democracy, where the people elect their representatives … not the elites … not the oligarchy. Everyone, every citizen,” he added.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on whether laws and the authorities adhere to the Constitution.
Is there a problem with justice in the country?
Experts recognise that the current judicial system has problems with corruption. Surveys also suggest that Mexicans have little to no confidence in the judicial system.
However, experts also concur that the problems are more pronounced at the local level rather than at the federal.
“There were no known major corruption cases [at the federal level],” Arturo Ramos Sobarzo, the director of the Center for Investigation and Legal Informatics at Mexico City’s Escuela Libre de Derecho, told Al Jazeera. “Of course, there were problems, and they were addressed. The criticism was mostly at the local level. There, the salaries were not as good, and there was a more critical view of the judiciary.”
According to Mexico Evalua, a think tank that evaluates government policies, Mexico’s justice system suffered from a very high level of impunity in 2022. The index used allows for identifying the system’s ability to provide an effective response to the cases it handles. A high level of impunity means a low rate of both appropriate convictions and cases being brought to court.
The crimes with the highest level of impunity, according to the report, were intentional homicides, femicides, sexual abuse, disappearances and kidnappings.
In the case of intentional homicide, the national average of impunity was 95.7 percent.
But, according to research, it is not just a question of cases before courts not yielding justice – allegedly due to corrupt judges. In Mexico, more than 90 percent of crimes are never brought to court.
One of the main challenges has to do with prosecutors’ willingness and capacity to investigate.
Nepotism is another significant issue and, according to some experts, a major concern within the judicial system. A recent report revealed that 37 percent of judiciary officials have at least one family member employed in the judiciary.
With these challenges, why are these reforms so controversial?
Experts say that the reform does not address the fundamental issues with the existing structure and prosecutors, who often lack adequate training and are frequently overwhelmed by their workload.
They also highlight that the new voting process for judges remains unclear and fraught with challenges.
Will voters take the time to research and review the resumes of the hundreds of relatively unknown candidates who could contest each position? Who will fund the candidates’ election campaigns? How many candidates will each ballot have on it? These are all unanswered questions.
“There’s sufficient people that consider that the judicial system doesn’t work well in Mexico,” Miguel Angel Toro Rios, the dean of the School of Social Sciences and Government at Tecnologico de Monterrey, a Monterrey-based university, told Al Jazeera.
He noted that the reforms do not address the main issues in the judicial system, prosecutors, the police or the National Guard.
Those problems can include corruption and, in many cases, chronic underfunding.
“If all of those things remain the same and the only thing you have is different judges… it’s not necessarily a given that they will be better equipped at dealing with these things. It seems like a lot of a hassle for a very limited policy gain,” Toros Rios explained.
Experts also fear this new process could be tainted by corruption.
“Citizens primarily turn to local state courts for issues like femicides or civil and criminal matters,” Adriana Delgado, the director of Azteca Opinion at TV Azteca, a Mexican multimedia conglomerate, told Al Jazeera.
“However, nothing gets resolved, and this judiciary reform has been marred by political rather than technical debates.”
“The reform only changes how judges and magistrates are elected by popular vote, which raises concerns about the potential infiltration of organised crime or the influence of political and economic interest groups on the selection process,” Delgado added.
Could voting affect the work of the judges?
According to lawyer Ramos Sobarzo, these reforms place the judicial system in a very challenging position.
For the Supreme Court of Justice, elected judges would serve terms of eight, 11, and 14 years, depending on the voting results. Those with the most votes will remain in office for a longer period.
“We are very concerned because it will undermine judicial independence in many ways as it will leave some or much of it to popularity,” he added.
“What is going to happen … in the seventh and eighth years, they will start thinking about how to get re-elected.”
“At that point, they might decide not based on the incentives of analysing the case files but on gaining popularity from a particular case. They will decide how it will be received by public opinion,” he explained.
The governing party argues that allowing voters to choose would make judges more accountable to the public and make it easier to punish problematic ones.
Besides the voting of the judges, what else are the reforms addressing?
The reforms will introduce “anonymous judges” to oversee organised crime cases, shielding their identities to protect them from reprisals, threats or pressure.
They will also reduce the size of the Supreme Court from 11 justices to nine.
They would also create a judicial disciplinary committee with the authority to address not only issues of judicial misconduct such as bribery, mishandling of evidence, or undue delays but also to investigate judges’ legal reasoning.
This aspect is also troubling to experts.
“We are very concerned about this change because it does not establish clear rules. It provides a very easy and free process for initiating proceedings against federal judges and magistrates, and we believe this will impact judicial independence. A judge might be ruling against a government appointment, and this court [the disciplinary committee] could intervene,” Sobarzo explained.
In the short term, what impact will this have on the judicial system in Mexico?
It is a big change in a short period of time.
In less than a year, on June 1, the election for half of the entire judiciary, including the complete Supreme Court, will take place.
Besides the challenge of organising such a big election, experts say that Mexicans might also feel an immediate impact on justice once this reform is in place.
“I do think they will feel the immediate impact, because this reform likely implies a salary reduction for members of the judiciary,” Sobarzo said.
The reform proposes that no minister, magistrate, or judge can earn a salary higher than that of the president.
According to reports, the typical salary for a member of the Supreme Court of Justice is above $10,000 a month. In 2018, Lopez Obrador said the president’s salary was about $5,613 monthly.
“We believe that, eventually, the best people will no longer be there,” Sobarzo explained.
But Toros Rios said that not much might change for everyday citizens and their legal disputes.
“It is not entirely obvious that everyday citizens will be affected,” Toros Rio said.
“Except if things benefit certain real powerful interest groups… they will probably be able to convince or fund the campaign of some of these judges, such that those judges will rule in favour of a lot of them,” he added.
Are there other concerns?
Amid the debates and controversy over the judicial reforms, the markets have fluctuated and some analysts have warned that uncertainty over the country’s legal system could spook potential investors.
The United States, Mexico’s largest trading partner, has also expressed concerns over the reforms, calling them “a major risk” to Mexico’s democracy. Canada, Mexico’s second-largest trading partner, has also said that investors fear the reform could lead to instability.
However, other experts believe the reforms will not affect Mexico’s potential as an investment destination.
“We’ve seen businesses around the world operate in some of the worst countries in terms of human rights, government quality and authoritarian regimes. They don’t care, as long as there are profits to be made and they have certainty about the rules,” Toros Rios said.
“When there’s uncertainty about the rules, then is when investors stop investing. Once the new rules are set, and more or less investors have an idea of what they’re dealing with, things will be more or less the same [as] what they’ve been here right now,” he added.
World
Takeaways from AP’s report on the ICE detention center holding children and parents
Many Americans were alarmed recently when immigration officers in Minneapolis took custody of a 5-year-old boy and sent him and his father to a Texas detention center. But he was no outlier.
The government has been holding hundreds of children and their parents at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, about 75 miles south of San Antonio. Some have been detained for months.
The Department of Homeland Security has strongly defended the quality of care and conditions there.
Here are key findings from an Associated Press report on how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement is shaping life inside the facility.
Detention of children has been rising
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement booked more than 3,800 children into detention during the first nine months of the new Trump administration, according to an AP analysis of data from the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.
On an average day, more than 220 children were being held, with most of those detained longer than 24 hours sent to Dilley. More than half of Dilley detainees during the early part of the Trump administration were children, the AP analysis found.
Since being reopened last spring, the number of people detained at Dilley has risen sharply and reached more than 1,300 in late January, according to researchers. Nearly two-thirds of children detained by ICE in the early months of the Trump administration were eventually deported.
ICE holds many children longer than 20-day limit
The government is holding many children at Dilley well beyond the 20-day limit set by a longstanding court order.
“We’ve started to use 100 days as a benchmark because so many children are exceeding 20 days,” said Leecia Welch, the chief legal director at Children’s Rights, who visits Dilley regularly to ensure compliance. In a visit this month, Welch said she counted more than 30 children who had been held for over 100 days.
Many settled families among those currently detained
When the Obama administration opened Dilley in 2014, nearly all the families detained there had recently crossed the border from Mexico.
But many of those now sent to the facility have lived in the U.S. several years, according to lawyers and other observers, meaning children are being uprooted from the familiarity of schools, neighborhoods and many of the people who care for them.
Parents Allege Deficient Care
Parents and children recounted stressful conditions inside Dilley, including experiences that raise questions about the quality of care being provided.
A 13-year-old girl cut herself with a plastic knife after staff withheld prescribed antidepressants and denied her request to join her mother down the hall, the mother told the AP.
Another mother said when her 1-year-old daughter developed a high fever and vomited, medical staff repeatedly offered only acetaminophen and ibuprofen before she was eventually admitted to hospitals with bronchitis, pneumonia and stomach viruses. ICE disputed her account, saying the baby “immediately received proper care.”
Other families described more routine problems, like the difficulty of getting children to sleep in quarters where lights are kept on all night and of stomach aches caused by foul drinking water.
Both adults and children described the often overwhelming stress of being detained that has caused many to despair.
ICE, DHS defend Dilley
DHS did not respond to detailed questions about Dilley submitted by the AP. But both DHS and ICE sharply refuted allegations of poor care and conditions in statements issued this week.
“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units in a safe, structured and appropriate environment,” ICE Director Todd M. Lyons said in a statement.
Dilley provides medical screenings and infant care packages as well as classrooms and recreational spaces, ICE said.
Once in full operation, Dilley is expected to generate about $180 million in annual revenue for CoreCivic, the for-profit prison company that operates it under contract with ICE, according to the company’s recent filing with securities regulators.
In response to questions from the AP, a CoreCivic spokesman said no child at Dilley “has been denied medical treatment or experienced a delayed medical assessment.” The company said detainees receive comprehensive care from medical and mental health professionals.
Questions about oversight
The increased detention of families comes as the Trump administration has gutted an office responsible for oversight of conditions inside Dilley and other facilities.
In years past, investigators found problems at Dilley, including consistently inadequate staffing and disregard for the trauma caused by the detention.
A special committee recommended that family detention be discontinued except in rare cases, and the Biden administration began phasing it out in 2021. Dilley was closed in 2024. But in reopening it, the Trump administration has completely reversed course.
World
World leaders split over military action as US-Israel strike Iran in coordinated operation
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
World leaders reacted swiftly Saturday after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, exposing a deep divide between governments backing the attack on Iran and those warning the attacks risk a wider regional war.
In a joint statement, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Anand voiced firm support saying, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” The statement described Iran as “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and stressed it “must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.”
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also endorsed the action, writing on X, “Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.” He confirmed Australia supports “the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” while activating emergency consular measures and urging Australians to leave Iran if safe.
The United Kingdom said Iran “must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office said he was speaking with the leaders of France and Germany “as part of a series of calls with allies.”
A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) )
French President Emmanuel Macron warned, “The outbreak of war between the United States, Israel and Iran carries grave consequences for international peace and security.” He added, “The ongoing escalation is dangerous for all. It must stop,” and called for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom also said they had “consistently urged the Iranian regime to end Iran’s nuclear program, curb its ballistic missile program, refrain from its destabilizing activity in the region and our homelands, and to cease the appalling violence and repression against its own people.”
The three governments said they “did not participate in these strikes,” but remain “in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region.”
They reiterated their “commitment to regional stability and to the protection of civilian life,” condemned “Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms,” and called for a “resumption of negotiations,” urging Iran’s leadership to seek a negotiated solution. “Ultimately, the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future,” the statement said.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described developments as “perilous,” saying Iran’s “ballistic missile and nuclear programmes… pose a serious threat to global security,” while emphasizing that “Protection of civilians and international humanitarian law is a priority.”
Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.”
Meanwhile, Gulf states responded to reported Iranian missile activity.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemns and denounces in strongest terms the blatant Iranian aggression and the flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.” It affirmed “its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries” and warned of “grave consequences resulting from the continued violation of states’ sovereignty and the principles of international law.”
The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Defense said the country “was subjected to a blatant attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles,” adding that air defense systems “successfully intercepted a number of missiles.” Authorities said falling debris in a residential area caused “one civilian death of an asian nationality” and material damage.
The ministry called the attack “a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act that threatens the safety of civilians and undermines stability,” and stated the UAE “reserves its full right to respond.”
UN’S ATOMIC AGENCY’S IRAN POLICY GETS MIXED REVIEWS FROM EXPERTS AFTER US-ISRAEL ‘OBLITERATE’ NUCLEAR SITES
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar “strongly condemned the unwarranted attacks against Iran” and called for “urgent resumption of diplomacy.”
China also weighed in. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, wrote on X that Beijing is “highly concerned over the military strikes against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.” He added that “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected” and called for “an immediate stop of the military actions” and “no further escalation.”
Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan held calls with counterparts across the region, a Turkish Foreign Ministry source told Reuters. The discussions focused on “possible steps to be taken to help bring an end to the attacks.”
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy directly linked the developments to Russia’s war against his country.
“Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with ‘shahed’ drones,” Zelenskyy wrote, adding that Russia has used “more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people.”
“It is important that the United States is acting decisively,” he said. “Whenever there is American resolve, global criminals weaken.”
Russia sharply criticized the operation. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said, “All negotiations with Iran are a cover operation.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
An interception is visible in the sky over Haifa during the latest barrage. (Anthony Hershko/TPS-IL)
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam warned, “We will not accept anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity.”
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the strike “is not in line with international law.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
World
Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 50 people
State media says Israeli attack on girls’ school in the city of Minab in the south of the country kills dozens.
Published On 28 Feb 2026
An Israeli strike has hit an elementary girls’ school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, killing at least 53 people, according to state media, as the immediate civilian cost from Israel and the United States’ huge bombardment of Iran comes into sharper focus.
Workers are continuing to clear wreckage from the site, where 63 others have been injured on Saturday, said Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. The strike is part of a wave of joint US-Israeli military attacks across Iran that has triggered an outbreak of regional violence.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which he said destroyed the girls’ school and killed “innocent children”.
“These crimes against the Iranian People will not go unanswered,” Araghchi wrote in a post on X.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei also slammed the “blatant crime” and urged action from the United Nations Security Council.
Separately, Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that at least two students were killed by another Israeli attack that hit a school east of the capital, Tehran.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Vall said the attacks call into question US and Israeli claims that “they are targeting only military targets and they are trying to punish the regime, not the people of Iran.”
“President Trump has promised the Iranian people that aid or help is coming their way, but now we are seeing civilian casualties; that’s something that the Iranian government will stress as a case of violation of international law and an aggression against the Iranian people, ” said Vall.
There was no immediate reaction from the US or Israel on Iran’s claims about the school strikes.
The last time the US and Iran waged attacks on Iran in June 2025, sparking the 12-day war, the civilian toll in Iran was also heavy.
According to Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education, thousands of civilians were killed or injured, and public infrastructure was damaged, during that conflict.
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana6 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT