Argentina’s President Javier Milei has sparked controversy by selecting two new Supreme Court judges through an executive decree, bypassing Congress during its summer recess. The move, justified as an exercise of his constitutional authority, aims to fill vacancies on the five-member court, which the administration claims cannot operate with just three judges.
Executive Action Amid Political Gridlock
Facing challenges in securing Senate votes—his libertarian coalition holds only seven of 72 seats—Milei opted to bypass traditional confirmation procedures. His office announced that the nominations of federal judge Ariel Lijo and lawyer Manuel García-Mansilla were made to ensure the court’s functionality. “The Senate chose to remain silent even though the suitability of the candidates for the position was demonstrated,” the administration stated, framing the appointments as a necessary and temporary measure until Congress reconvenes.
Criticism and Concerns Over Judicial Independence
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters. Critics question the competence of Judge Lijo, who is under investigation for charges including conspiracy, money laundering, and allegations of unethical conduct. Human Rights Watch denounced the decree as “one of the most serious attacks against the independence of the Supreme Court in Argentina since the return of democracy,” with Americas director Juanita Goebertus emphasising that bypassing established institutional mechanisms undermines the country’s constitutional order.
Constitutional lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez warned, “The decrees are for restrictive use and cannot be used as a mere alternative to the regular procedures provided for by the constitution. When they are used for other purposes, the constitutional order and the rights of the people are in serious danger.”
Temporary Appointments Amid Political Fallout
The new appointments are temporary; the judges’ terms will expire at the end of the next congressional session on November 30. After that date, Lijo and García-Mansilla must secure Senate approval to continue serving on the bench. The move is widely seen as a bare-knuckle strategy to pack the court with loyalists, potentially shifting the judicial landscape in favor of President Milei’s political agenda.
As Argentina grapples with this judicial shake-up, political observers note that the decision reflects broader tensions between the executive branch and legislative institutions. Critics argue that such moves could erode judicial independence, while supporters claim the action is necessary to overcome legislative gridlock.
The controversy surrounding these appointments is likely to fuel further debate over the balance of power in Argentina’s political system, as the nation continues to navigate a period of significant ideological and institutional transformation.