The End of Judicial Independence in the Americas

One of the most fundamental lessons we impart in civics education is that the principle of separation of powers is crucial to democratic governance, designed to prevent any single branch of government from holding excessive power. At the heart of this balance is the judiciary's independence, serving as a neutral arbiter in legal disputes and a safeguard against other branches' abuses of power. Yet, in the past decade, the politicization of judicial appointments has severely challenged this ideal, not only in established democracies like the United States but also across the volatile democratic landscapes of Latin America.

In the United States, the integrity of the judiciary is being severely tested by the increasing politicization of Supreme Court appointments. Recent controversies, such as the involvement of two Justices' spouses in polarizing political debates, underscore the severity of the situation. Moreover, the explicit ideological litmus tests applied to the selection of the three newest Supreme Court members signal a worrying departure from the principle of judicial neutrality. These developments have not only undermined public trust in the judiciary's impartiality, which is crucial for a functioning democracy, but have also been exacerbated by presidential candidates openly questioning the courts or asserting that the judicial system has been "weaponized" against them. Public opinion polls echo this sentiment, indicating a significant decline in trust in the judiciary.

The challenges are even more pronounced in Latin America, where many democracies are less established and often more volatile. In Bolivia, for example, where the judiciary is elected in a political environment dominated by a single party, the independence of the courts is not just compromised but is practically non-existent. This situation is mirrored in Mexico, where there is an ongoing debate about electing judges to purportedly increase their accountability to the public. However, Bolivia's experience with electing judges demonstrates that this approach does not increase accountability but instead transforms the judiciary into an extension of the executive branch.

This trend of politicization is not confined to any particular political ideology. Across the hemisphere, from right to left, there is a persistent drive to populate the judicial benches with friends or political allies. This strategy is primarily aimed at securing the ability to amend constitutions or advance specific worldviews without the hindrance of judicial review.

These alarming trends indicate a severe erosion of judicial independence. If left unchecked, they foreshadow a future where the separation of powers is a mere relic of the past, and courts no longer serve their critical role as impartial guardians of the law but rather act as instruments of political will.

As we observe these developments, the imperative to defend judicial independence becomes increasingly clear. This defense is not merely about protecting legal norms but is crucial for the survival of democracy itself. Without independent courts, the rights of citizens are at the mercy of whichever political force holds sway, a scenario wholly incompatible with the ideals of justice and equality that are foundational to democratic governance.