Court Turns to Substitute Justices After Split
During its plenary session on Tuesday, Argentina's Supreme Court failed to achieve a unanimous position and decided to call in two substitute justices to participate in a case concerning the validity of article 154 of the DNU 70/23, which repealed the Rural Land Law. The drawing of lots to select the substitutes will take place in the coming hours. The three justices of the highest court examined a filing from an environmental NGO that had been submitted the previous week as a request for clarification, following the court's ruling the prior Tuesday that rejected a presentation by the CECIM association of former combatants for lack of standing.[S1][S2]
The new case now before the court is a lawsuit brought by the civil association Árbol de Pie, which also challenges article 154 of the DNU 70/23 that repealed the land law. The NGO based its claim on the right to environmental protection expressly recognized in the National Constitution. The lawsuit was not addressed by the federal court in Bariloche, where it was initially filed, nor by the Federal Chamber of La Plata, to which the case was later transferred.[S1][S2]
Court Clarifies Scope of Earlier Ruling
The examination of this new case aligns with the Supreme Court's statement after the controversy over the CECIM ruling. In that statement, the court clarified that in that case it had only resolved a procedural question about an association's standing to seek an injunction and had not defined the constitutionality or validity of the land regime. It also clarified that the decision does not affect other pending injunctions or prevent new claims before the courts. Finally, it noted that the substantive question regarding the Land Law and article 154 of the DNU 70/2023 has not yet been resolved and will be analyzed when the relevant challenges are brought.[S1][S2]
The handling of this new case follows the collective proceedings regime, under which related cases are grouped. The court first had to address the CECIM claim. That rejection opened the way to consider the second case in order, which is that of Árbol de Pie, an environmental association raising issues directly linked to the matter. The highest court is also now in a position to rule on the CGT's challenge to the labor chapter of the DNU 70/2023, following the opinion of Attorney General Eduardo Casal.[S1][S2]
Labor Chapter Challenge Awaits Ruling
The National Labor Chamber had declared unconstitutional title IV of the decree, comprising articles 53 to 97, in response to an amparo action filed by the CGT against the National State. That ruling was appealed by the government to the Supreme Court. The labor court recognized the CGT's standing to defend individual and collective rights of workers. It also concluded that the exceptional circumstances required for issuing a decree of necessity and urgency were not present: the impossibility of Congress meeting or a situation that could not await the ordinary legislative process.[S1]
The Labor Chamber held that the measures did not respond to a temporary situation but instead modified permanent laws enacted by Congress. For that reason, it deemed the labor block of the decree unconstitutional. That case could lead the Supreme Court to establish a criterion on the requirements of necessity and urgency for the Executive Branch to issue such norms.[S1]
