The Supreme Court invalidates five articles of Hidalgo's judicial law

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared the invalidity of articles 180, 182 —sections I and V—, 183, 187, and 190 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the State of Hidalgo, in the ruling of Unconstitutionality Action 125/2024, published on November 10, 2026, in the Official Gazette of the Federation (No. 308/2026, First Section, Judicial Power). The ruling was approved in the session of April 27, 2026, certified on September 30, and establishes a criterion applicable to the disciplinary regimes of the judicial powers of the federative entities.

The challenged norm is the Organic Law issued through Decree 885, published in the Official Gazette of the State of Hidalgo on May 9, 2024. The National Human Rights Commission, then presided over by María del Rosario Piedra Ibarra, filed the lawsuit on June 10, 2024, against the state Executive and Legislative Powers; the case was admitted on July 11 of that year, and the matter was assigned to Minister Irving Espinosa Betanzo as the rapporteur following the integration of the 2025 Plenary. The General Secretariat of Agreements, headed by Daniel Álvarez Toledo, certified the resolution for its publication.

Lack of classification of offenses

Article 180 lists in fifteen sections the causes of liability for public servants of the Hidalgo Judicial Power, but it does not distinguish which are serious and which are not serious. The Plenary concluded that this omission violates the principle of constitutional supremacy of Article 133 and the bases of Article 109, section III, as the classification is required both to determine the sanction and to operate the prescription periods of Article 114.

According to the ruling, the absence of this distinction allows for authority arbitrariness and leaves the recipients in uncertainty, as they are unaware of the gravity of the conduct, the applicable sanction, and the body that will resolve it. This article was invalidated by a majority of seven votes, with the dissenting vote of Minister Batres Guadarrama.

Sanctions and procedures delegated to agreements

Articles 183, 187, and 190 referred the assessment of offenses, the liability procedure, its terms, and the prescription to the “Agreement on Administrative Responsibilities of the Judicial Power,” the “Agreement of Provisions on Administrative Responsibilities of the Judicial Power,” and the general agreements of the Plenary of the Council of the Judiciary. The Plenary Court determined that the Constitution requires these matters to be in the local Constitution and in the law, not in infra-legal regulation.

From article 182, two sanctions were invalidated:

• Private or public warning (fraction I), a figure absent from the closed catalog of Article 109 of the Constitution, which only allows for admonition, suspension, removal, disqualification, and economic sanctions.
• Temporary disqualification from holding jobs, positions, or commissions (fraction V), for failing to establish minimum and maximum duration parameters, which violates the guarantee of the exact application of the law and could result in disproportionate penalties.

By extension, fraction XXVIII of Article 124 was invalidated in the portion that referred to the Council’s regulations and agreements regarding disciplinary matters.

Divided Vote and Concurring Opinion

The resolution was approved by a unanimous vote of eight regarding Articles 182, fraction I; 183, 187, and 190, and by extension Article 124. Article 180 was invalidated by a majority of seven, and fraction V of Article 182 by a majority of six, with opposing votes from Justices Batres Guadarrama and Guerrero García.

Justice Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra announced a concurring vote: she shared the finding of invalidity but maintained that it was also applicable due to a contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the infractions and sanctions were not embodied in law in a formal and material sense. Justice Loretta Ortiz Ahlf and President Hugo Aguilar Ortiz did not attend the session on April 21, 2026.

Effects of the Ruling

The declarations of invalidity will take effect upon notification of the resolutive points to the Congress of the State of Hidalgo, which must adapt the local disciplinary regime. The sentence orders its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation, the Official Gazette of the entity, and the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette.

The ruling directly affects magistrates, judges, and personnel of the Judiciary of Hidalgo, who until now could be sanctioned based on administrative agreements without knowing if their fault was serious. Furthermore, it sets a parameter for the rest of the state judiciaries: the classification of faults and sanctioning procedures must be in the law, not in internal instruments of the Council of the Judiciary.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, No. 308/2026, November 10, 2026, First Section (Judiciary), pp. 51-76 (official reference: Unconstitutionality Action 125/2024).