Mexico Supreme Court criticized for weakening role of consultation in disability legislation News
ProtoplasmaKid, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Mexico Supreme Court criticized for weakening role of consultation in disability legislation

Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Thursday condemned the Mexican Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate requirements for consultation with people with disabilities prior to the enactment of law that may affect them, claiming the ruling risks further marginalizing a vulnerable community.

HRW associate disability rights director Carlos Ríos Espinosa stated: “Consultation is not a bureaucratic formality, but a right enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and a safeguard of dignity and democratic participation.”

Precedent had previously required legislators to consult with people with disabilities before passing new laws that affect their rights. Many saw the rule as an important safeguard against the bureaucratic erasure of citizens’ voices.

The new doctrine, however, weakens that requirement by placing a burden on litigants to affirmatively request consultation and allowing legislation to remain valid if it is deemed “beneficial” to persons with disabilities, irrespective of whether proper consultation procedures were observed.

HRW argued that the new standard is ambiguous, takes legal autonomy away from disabled people, and risks entrenching paternalistic assumptions into law, rather than respecting individuals’ agency.

The shift in doctrine was announced in a case brought by the National Commission of Human Rights challenging Law No. 817 for Persons with Disabilities of the State of Guerrero. The ruling came as a surprise, as previous attempts to bypass consultation in the legislative process had been invalidated by the court. For example, a 2020 ruling struck down a law in Chihuahua that permitted adults with disabilities to be legally adopted by older adults, due to the lack of adherence to consultation and procedural safeguards.

The court’s new posture runs counter to nationally and internationally accepted legal principles, like those expressed in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which deems that all human beings are equal in rights, and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines the principle of non-discrimination before the law. In prior cases, in which the Supreme Court struck down a proposed autism law and a Mexico City education law, the court upheld the consultation requirement as a manifestation of principles in Article 1 of the Mexican Constitution.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Cedar Revolution begins in Lebanon

On March 14, 2005, the Cedar Revolution began in Lebanon after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Led by the March Fourteenth Movement, street protests in the Cedar Revolution led to the resignation of the generally pro-Syrian government of Lebanon and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country.

Jack Ruby convicted for murder of JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald

On March 14, 1964, nightclub owner Jack Ruby was convicted of the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, who had presumably assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Ruby was sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Ruby's conviction in October 1966 and ordered a new trial citing improperly admitted testimony and an improper venue in the original proceeding, but Ruby died before the second trial could be convened. Review a transcript of Jack Ruby's July 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. The Assistant Counsel for the Commission doing some of the questioning reported on the transcript is Arlen Specter, who would become a US Senator for Pennsylvania.