(Mexico City) – A recent ruling by Mexico’s Supreme Court, announced on September 25, 2025, poses a significant threat to the meaningful involvement of people with disabilities in the legislative process, according to Human Rights Watch. The decision compromises the hard-won rights of individuals with disabilities to actively participate in shaping the laws that directly affect their lives.
For nearly a decade, the Supreme Court upheld a crucial precedent that mandated prior consultations with people with disabilities before any laws impacting their rights could be enacted. This guideline was essential in ensuring that legislation did not proceed without the voices of those most impacted being heard. However, the new ruling shifts the responsibility onto individuals or groups to bring up the necessity for consultation, allowing laws to be upheld even if they lack such discussions, provided they are deemed beneficial to those with disabilities.
“Consultation is not merely a bureaucratic formality; it is a fundamental right recognized in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” stated Carlos Ríos Espinosa, associate disability rights director at Human Rights Watch. “It is vital for Mexican legislatures to guarantee that people with disabilities have an influential voice in the laws that govern their lives.”
The consequences of neglecting consultation are evident. In October 2020, the Supreme Court invalidated a law from Chihuahua that allowed adults with disabilities to be legally adopted by older adults. While this law was ostensibly aimed at increasing social security coverage, it ultimately treated adults with disabilities in a paternalistic manner, undermining their autonomy and denying them the recognition of their adulthood. Although the court’s decision to strike down the law was a victory for disability rights, it was based solely on procedural grounds—the failure to conduct prior consultation.
Similar reasoning was applied in other cases, including the invalidation of Nuevo León’s Autism Law and Mexico City’s Law of Education, both of which were deemed unconstitutional due to the lack of prior consultation with people with disabilities. In the latter instance, the court missed an opportunity to establish meaningful standards for inclusive education in the city.
The newly constituted Supreme Court that began its term in September 2025 introduced a significant shift in its doctrine in a case brought forth by the National Commission of Human Rights regarding Law No. 817 for Persons with Disabilities of the State of Guerrero. In its announcement, the court declared that it would now require parties to raise the issue of consultation themselves, rather than addressing it automatically. This means that the right to consultation will only be examined when specifically raised by the complainant, and it will not lead to the automatic invalidation of laws that could potentially benefit individuals with disabilities.
While this new approach aims to move beyond mere procedural formalities, it runs the risk of leaving consultation to chance. Legislators, even with good intentions, may inadvertently perpetuate harmful paternalism if they do not engage directly with people with disabilities. Consultation should not be seen as a barrier to progressive legislation; rather, it is essential for ensuring that such legislation genuinely reflects the needs and priorities of those affected.
International law, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, stipulates that individuals with disabilities must be involved directly in decisions that impact them. Consultation is not merely a democratic ideal; it is a protective measure against laws that could marginalize or exclude adults with disabilities. The failure to consult can lead to the repetition of past mistakes, where well-meaning initiatives ultimately undermine the rights of those they aim to assist.
To enhance participation, legislatures should establish clear and practical standards for consultation. The court should also consider refining its approach. Given its decision not to automatically invalidate laws lacking prior consultation, it could develop criteria that assess both the consequences of such omissions and the extent to which the legislation promotes human rights. It is crucial to avoid overly rigid standards, and each situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, preserving the court’s ability to conduct ex officio reviews of the right to consultation remains vital to protecting individuals with disabilities from exclusion in legislative processes.
Mexico has ratified the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, committing to ensuring full participation of people with disabilities in legislative and policy-making processes. By weakening the requirement for consultation, the Supreme Court undermines Mexico’s international obligations and contradicts the fundamental disability rights principle of “nothing about us without us.”
“The Supreme Court must be vigilant in preserving the critical protections available to people with disabilities in Mexico,” Ríos Espinosa emphasized. “It should explore ways to refine its approach to ensure that both consultation and substantive analysis of disability rights are central to constitutional review.”
