When Martha García, a young disability activist and student at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, heard the Supreme Court planned to change a legal precedent that could weaken the right of people with disabilities to engage in the democratic process, she decided to act. On October 13, the Court was expected to issue its decision, so that same day Martha and other activists organized a demonstration outside the court, demanding that people with disabilities be heard before any final ruling was made.
The court agreed to the protesters’ demands and announced a public hearing for October 20. However, the manner in which it was announced in their call through social media failed to meet even basic accessibilitystandards. It wasn’t compatible with screen readers for blind people, didn’t include Mexican Sign Language interpretation, and wasn’t available in easy-to-read or other accessible formats. Most importantly, the deadline for participation was so short that many organizations and individuals won’t be able to arrange suitable accommodation.
For Martha, who uses a wheelchair, getting to the court on time meant waking up at 4 a.m. and navigating the many physical and social barriers that make it hard for people with disabilities to take part in public life. Her experience reflects the broader obstacles that continue to keep many people with disabilities from being included in decisions that directly affect them. Accessibility isn’t just about ramps or elevators, it’s also about communication, clear information, and enough time for meaningful participation. Yet the court’s draft ruling in case 182/2024, which is at the center of this process, was written in highly technical legal language and never made available in plain or easy-to-read versions. As a result, it was effectively inaccessible to many of the people it concerns most.
Despite the challenges she faced, Martha didn’t back down. Along with her peers, she arrived early and was ready to make her presence known before the justices began their session at 10 a.m. Eventually, the doors opened, and they were allowed in.
But as Martha and others have emphasized, real inclusion shouldn’t depend on persistence or chance. The court should not only listen but engage in ways that are truly accessible and take whatever steps it can to extend the hearing sessions. The goal isn’t to ensure that a few can be heard, it’s to make sure that anyone with a disability, no matter the level of support they need, can fully and equally participate in shaping the decisions that impact their lives.
