The Court's Interim Injunction
Argentina's Supreme Court of Justice issued an interim injunction on Friday suspending the effects of Article 154 of DNU 70/2023, the provision that had repealed the Rural Land Law. The decision was signed by Justices Horacio Rosatti and Ricardo Lorenzetti, together with substitute judges Diego Barroetaveña and Juan Ignacio Pérez Curci. The suspension will remain in force until the competent judge rules on the standing of all parties and examines their request for a precautionary measure. Justice Carlos Rosenkrantz dissented.[S1][S2][S3][S4][S5][S6][S7]
The court determined that the case involves matters concerning the protection of environmental damage, making it necessary to issue an interim measure to guarantee effective judicial protection and prevent irreparable harm. The justices noted that the procedural path taken by the lower courts had left the plaintiffs' petitions unanswered, and that the nature of the rights invoked included both the right to a timely judicial response and the right to environmental protection.[S1][S3][S4]
The ruling emphasized that judges must be vigilant custodians of the Constitution and the laws, and that confidence in the judiciary requires the reasonable application of norms to the particular circumstances of each case. The court stated that the decision in the Árbol de Pie case responded specifically to the plaintiffs' claims, which were tied to environmental protection.[S1][S2]
Background of the Árbol de Pie Case
The Asociación Civil Árbol de Pie, along with other individual plaintiffs including legislator María Magdalena Odarda and representatives of Indigenous communities, filed a collective amparo action in late December 2023 before the federal court in Bariloche. They sought a declaration that Article 154 of DNU 70/2023 was unconstitutional, arguing that repealing the Land Law compromised the right to a healthy and balanced environment under Article 41 of the National Constitution. They also contended that the repeal endangered the rational use of resources, the preservation of nature, and biological diversity.[S1][S3][S4]
In February 2024, the Federal Court of Bariloche, without ruling on the merits or the injunction, ordered the case transferred to the Federal Chamber of La Plata, where the CECIM case was being heard. The court reasoned that the CECIM proceeding, despite lacking collective status at that time, attracted other cases with the same object. In July 2024, the Federal Chamber of La Plata, after issuing its ruling in the CECIM case and granting the National State's extraordinary appeal, ordered the Árbol de Pie case sent to the Supreme Court, again without addressing its claims.[S1][S3]
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled on the CECIM case, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing because it alleged an affectation of national sovereignty, and rejected the demand seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 154. The court made clear in its ruling and a subsequent statement that the rejection was purely procedural, without addressing the merits, and that the decision followed its precedents. On September 30, the Árbol de Pie plaintiffs asked the court to clarify whether they were covered by the CECIM ruling and reiterated their request for an injunction.[S1][S3]
Substitute Judges and Dissent
The decision was reached with the votes of two substitute judges because the three regular members of the court—Carlos Rosenkrantz, Horacio Rosatti, and Ricardo Lorenzetti—did not achieve the necessary unanimity to proceed. The court summoned the substitutes to break the tie. The designated magistrates were Diego Barroetaveña of Chamber I of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation and Juan Ignacio Pérez Curci of the Federal Chamber of Appeals of Mendoza. Both are criminal law specialists with extensive judicial careers. Barroetaveña, close to Rosatti, sits on the Magistrates Council; Pérez Curci is a disciple of Carlos Mahiques, a Cassation judge and father of the current Justice Minister.[S1][S5]
Rosenkrantz signed in dissent. He agreed that the case should return to the Federal Court of San Carlos de Bariloche but opposed the Supreme Court suspending the effects of Article 154. In his vote, he argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction that had not been previously addressed by lower courts. He also questioned the environmental grounds for the injunction, noting that the plaintiffs had based the danger primarily on potential harm to the territorial integrity of Indigenous communities and had not sufficiently developed a grave or irreversible environmental risk. He warned that a generic reference to the environment cannot by itself justify an exceptional measure.[S1][S5]
