Power in Buenos Aires doesn't just live at the Casa Rosada. Honestly, if you want to know who really runs the show, you have to look at the fourth floor of the Talcahuano Palace. That's where the Supreme Court of Argentina—the Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (CSJN)—sits. It is the final word. It’s the ultimate referee in a country where political matches often turn into full-blown brawls.
Most people think of the court as a dry, legalistic library. It isn't. It is a high-stakes arena where the country’s debt, its private property rights, and even the legality of its presidents' decrees are decided.
The Court is small. Usually five justices. That’s it. Just five people holding the constitutional leash of a nation of 46 million. But the bench isn't always full, and that is where the drama starts.
The Architecture of Influence: How the Supreme Court of Argentina Actually Works
The Court wasn't an accident. It was modeled heavily after the U.S. Supreme Court back in the 1860s. The founders of the Argentine Constitution wanted a check on executive power. They got one. Maybe too much of one, depending on which politician you ask.
The justices are appointed by the President. But—and this is a big "but"—they need two-thirds of the Senate to agree. In a polarized Argentina, getting two-thirds of anyone to agree on lunch is a miracle, let alone a lifetime judicial appointment. This is why you often see "provisional" setups or long-standing vacancies that create a weird, liminal state of law.
The Power of "Certiorari" and the Per saltum
Argentina has this cool, albeit controversial, tool called the per saltum. It basically means "leapfrog." If a case is super urgent and affects the "institutional gravity" of the country, the Supreme Court can snatch it right out of the lower courts and decide it immediately. It’s a legal turbo-boost.
They don't use it often. When they do? It usually means the country is in a crisis.
You've also got the recurso extraordinario. This is the narrow gate. Most cases die before reaching the Supreme Court of Argentina. To get through, you have to prove a "federal question." It's not enough that the lower judge was a jerk or made a mistake; you have to prove the Constitution itself is being poked in the eye.
👉 See also: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened
Why the Number of Justices Is Always a Fight
History matters here. Back in the 90s, President Carlos Menem famously expanded the court to nine members. People called it the "Automatic Majority." Why? Because he hand-picked the new seats to ensure his policies never got struck down. It was a masterclass in judicial packing.
Then came Néstor Kirchner. He did something unexpected. He didn't just pack it further; he pushed for a law to reduce it back to five. He wanted to restore some prestige to a court that had lost the public's trust. It worked for a while. Figures like Carmen Argibay—a self-described "atheist and militant for rights"—and Ricardo Lorenzetti brought a new level of intellectual weight to the bench.
But now? We are back in the thick of it. As of 2024 and heading into 2026, the vacancies left by retired justices like Elena Highton de Nolasco have turned the court into a political chessboard. President Javier Milei’s nominations, like Manuel García-Mansilla and Ariel Lijo, sparked massive debates. Lijo, in particular, faced heat from NGOs like Poder Ciudadano over his track record in corruption cases.
The number of justices isn't just math. It's about who owns the tie-breaker.
Landmark Rulings That Changed Everything
If you want to understand the Supreme Court of Argentina, you have to look at the "Fabián Falco" or "Arriola" cases.
Take Arriola (2009). The court basically said it’s unconstitutional to punish an adult for having a small amount of marijuana for personal use. They leaned on Article 19: "The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are reserved only to God." That’s a heavy line. It showed a court willing to protect individual liberty against the state’s moralizing.
Then there’s the money.
✨ Don't miss: Joseph Stalin Political Party: What Most People Get Wrong
Argentina is famous for its economic swings. When the government froze bank accounts during the 2001 "Corralito" crisis, the Court eventually had to step in. The "Smith" and "San Luis" rulings were pivotal. They dealt with whether the government could forcibly convert dollar deposits into devalued pesos.
- The "Massa" Case: This set the tone for how pensions are recalculated during hyperinflation.
- The "Halabi" Case: A huge win for privacy. It created the concept of "collective amparo," allowing groups to sue for rights that affect everyone, like data privacy or environmental protection.
The Friction Between the Court and the President
There is a permanent tension. In Argentina, the Executive branch often rules by "Decrees of Necessity and Urgency" (DNU). It’s a shortcut. The Supreme Court is the only thing that can say, "Hey, this isn't actually an emergency, go through Congress."
During the Alberto Fernández administration, the court clashed with the government over everything from COVID-19 school closures in Buenos Aires to the makeup of the Council of Magistrates (the body that hires and fires judges). The court ruled that the city had the autonomy to keep schools open. The President was furious. It was a classic "Federalism vs. Centralism" showdown that dates back to the 19th century.
Honestly, the Court is often accused of being a "political actor." Is it? Well, when you have to decide if a province can change its constitution to allow a governor to run for a fourth term (like in the cases of San Juan and Tucumán in 2023), you are inevitably doing politics. By stopping those re-elections, the Court basically decided the political future of entire regions.
How to Track What’s Happening Right Now
If you’re trying to follow the Supreme Court of Argentina, don't just wait for the evening news. The court has its own news agency called CIJ (Centro de Información Judicial). It’s surprisingly transparent. They post the full text of rulings, which is great because the media often spins these decisions to fit a narrative.
Current President of the Court, Horacio Rosatti, is a fascinating figure. He was a former Justice Minister who quit because he didn't like how some contracts were being handled. Now, he’s the guy presiding over the same government structures he once walked away from.
The Council of Magistrates Mess
You can't talk about the Court without the Council of Magistrates. This is the "kitchen" where judges are made. For years, there was a war over who got to sit on this council. The Supreme Court eventually stepped in and said the law governing the council was unconstitutional because it gave politicians too much power over judges.
🔗 Read more: Typhoon Tip and the Largest Hurricane on Record: Why Size Actually Matters
The Court then did something bold: it reinstated an old law and the Chief Justice (Rosatti) took over as head of the Council. Critics called it a "judicial coup." Supporters called it a "return to the rule of law." It depends on whose side you're on, but it certainly made the Court more powerful than it’s been in decades.
Common Misconceptions
People think the Court can just pick any law and strike it down. No.
They need a "case or controversy." They can't just issue an opinion because they think a law is stupid. Someone has to be harmed by the law, sue, lose, appeal, and then get to the top. This is why some terrible laws stay on the books for years—nobody has the money or the stamina to fight them all the way to the Talcahuano Palace.
Another myth? That they are all "closet politicians." While they are appointed by politicians, the lifetime tenure (until 75, usually) creates a weird effect. Once a judge is in, they often turn on the President who appointed them. It’s the "Ingratitude of the Bench."
Practical Steps for Following Argentine Jurisprudence
If you are a law student, a journalist, or just someone moving to Argentina, you need to know how to navigate this.
- Monitor the "Acordadas": These are administrative rulings. They sound boring but they govern how the entire judicial system works, from digital signatures to how fast trials must go.
- Use Infoleg: This is the government's database. If you want to see if a law has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Argentina, this is the most reliable place to check.
- Watch the Public Hearings: Every now and then, for massive cases (like the "Ley de Medios" or environmental cases), the Court holds public hearings where experts testify. They are often livestreamed and are a masterclass in constitutional debate.
- Check the "Amicus Curiae": Argentina allows "friends of the court" to submit briefs. Watching which NGOs (like CELS or ADC) submit briefs can tell you which way the wind is blowing on human rights or tech issues.
The Supreme Court of Argentina remains the final bastion of the "Republic." Whether it's protecting the value of the peso, deciding on the legality of an election, or protecting your right to privacy, these five (or four, or three) people have the final say. Understanding them isn't just for lawyers—it's for anyone who wants to understand how power truly flows in the Southern Cone.
Keep an eye on the upcoming appointments for the vacant seats. Those names will define Argentine law for the next twenty years. It's a slow-moving process, but it's the only one that really matters when the political dust settles.