The Mexican Supreme Court V. Chief Justice John Marshall

more+
less-

The Plaintiff was a legitimate candidate to occupy the office of Mexican Ombudsman. He presented thinking he was participating, as the Mexican Constitution states, in a reelection of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, based in a Secondary Law, was ratified. The legitimate Candidate pleaded through “Juicio de Amparo” (a Mexican resource similar to the “Injunction”) that both the Federal Law and the ratification were unconstitutional. The Mexican Supreme Court denied the petition based in an inexistent exception to the “Juicio de Amparo.” The Inter-­-American Commission on Human Rights is about to emit or not to emit a recommendation. The Inter-­-American Court of Human Rights could accept jurisdiction.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Constitutional Law Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlos Gil | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »