Mexican apex judiciary and its multiple interpretations: Challenges for the constitutional right to health

Abstract

Abstract The judicialization of social rights is a reality in Latin America; however, little has been said about this phenomenon in Mexico or about the role of the Mexican Supreme Court (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, SCJN) in advancing an effective guarantee of the right to health. In several countries, courts have adopted either an active role in defining health policy and protecting the right to health or a passive one. Studying the ways in which health-related cases are resolved in Mexico enables us to evaluate the role of the SCJN when ruling for or against this right. This article aims to determine whether the SCJN, through the analysis of its rulings, is or could be a catalyst for change in the healthcare system. This article reports on the results of a systematic content analysis of twenty-two SCJN rulings, examining the claimants, their claims as understood by the SCJN, and the elements considered by the justices in their decision-making process. The analysis of the way in which the SCJN ruled in these cases demonstrates that the SCJN must be uniform and consistent in applying constitutional and conventional principles to improve predictability of its decisions and to be innovative in responding to the new requirements posed by economic, social, and cultural rights. The SCJN should increase its possibilities of promoting structural reforms where laws or policies are inconsistent with constitutional or conventional standards by maintaining a middle ground with respect of the executive and legislative branches.