Introduction and Contribution

Democratic “consolidation,” whereby democracy is the “only game in town,” depends on the functioning of a host of political institutions. This includes free and fair elections, respect for individual rights, and an independent judiciary. Accordingly, many countries that underwent transitions to democracy in the 1990s worked to build autonomous and impartial judicial institutions. Reformers hoped that judges with the capacity to review executive and legislative action and effectively enforce their decisions would serve as bulwarks against authoritarian reversion. 

Yet the recent wave of democratic backsliding and autocratization has demonstrated the fragility of judicial institutions. In places as diverse as Hungary, Poland, Venezuela, and Turkey, elected authoritarian leaders have sought to weaken or destroy independent judiciaries, even co-opting them to further their anti-democratic agendas. Have judges become unable to counter autocrats? Answering this question is critical for the global pro-democracy movement.

In “How Latin America's Judges are Defending Democracy,” Diego A. Zambrano, Ludmilla Martins da Silva, Rolando Garcia Miron, and Santiago P. Rodríguez show how judges in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico have made a series of innovative and forceful anti-authoritarian rulings. These outcomes are surprising in light of parallel judicial failures in Latin America and other backsliding democracies. The authors discuss six factors that help explain these outcomes: three stem from the judiciary's internal politics, and three connect to broader changes in Latin American society. Although no single factor explains all three cases, this should not detract from the broader lesson that judiciaries can serve as important pro-democracy actors. 

Three Cases of Judges Defending Democracy

Brazil: 

After the military junta fell in 1985, Brazil built strong judicial institutions, which largely remained on the political sidelines until the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018. During his campaign, Bolsonaro expressed his intent to manipulate the Supreme Court’s composition, suggested he would not comply with its decisions, and marched in favor of a military takeover. Meanwhile, his supporters placed explosives near the homes of Supreme Court justices and made threats against them and their families. These developments — threatening Brazilian democracy, the separation of powers, and the personal safety of judges — put significant strain on the judiciary. 

In response, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of ruling that it could unilaterally open investigations into government officials. It did so in cases involving those who spread false information and made defamatory accusations against judges. During COVID-19, Bolsonaro attempted to centralize the authority to impose lockdowns, which the Supreme Court rejected as violating the constitutional separation of powers.

Brazilian democracy faced its most existential threat during and after the 2022 elections. In response to Bolsonaro and his supporters promoting conspiracy theories about election fraud, the Supreme Court issued press releases attesting to the elections’ democratic integrity. And after the infamous Brazilian coup plot, the Court investigated Bolsonaro and disqualified him from running for office.

Colombia:

Colombia’s judiciary has received global recognition for its independence, defenses of human rights, and broad domestic legitimacy. It has decriminalized abortion and euthanasia while imposing limits on executive power. In 2010, it rejected President Álvaro Uribe’s unconstitutional attempt to run for a third term in office despite Uribe’s widespread support among the public and Colombian elite. And in 2023, it upheld its power to suspend evidently unconstitutional acts or those posing a “clear and present danger” to the constitutional order. These rulings demonstrate how Colombian judges have been willing to defend constitutional democracy, even when doing so requires confronting powerful executives.

Mexico:

Much like in Brazil under Bolsonaro, Mexico’s judiciary faced a critical test with the rise of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) in 2018. AMLO was extremely popular, winning over 50% of the vote, while his Morena party took control of Congress. Perceiving the Supreme Court as an impediment to his populist agenda, AMLO used daily press conferences to denounce the justices as overpaid, corrupt elites. 

Initially, Supreme Court president Arturo Zaldívar was receptive to AMLO’s accusations, persuading his colleagues to accept salary and budget reductions. However, Zaldívar’s successor, Norma Piña, led a much more oppositional court. One of AMLO’s signature initiatives was to overhaul and defund the independent electoral body — the National Electoral Institute (INE) — seen as one of Mexican democracy’s most important institutions. This involved reducing INE’s staff by 85%, which would have placed free and fair elections in serious jeopardy. When the INE case reached the Supreme Court, however, the justices sided against AMLO. 

Why Have Judges Defended Democracy?

These bold and surprising cases of judicial intervention in defense of democracy call for an explanation. Accordingly, the authors consider two sets of factors, one internal and one external to the judiciary. One external factor is connected to the fact that judiciaries often side with public opinion, which has increasingly opposed authoritarian maneuvers by executives. For example, although AMLO was popular, his anti-democratic electoral reforms were not, prompting mass protests in 2023. However, this factor has a harder time explaining judicial behavior in Colombia; as mentioned, President Uribe’s proposed third term received broad public support.

Perhaps the more compelling factors are internal to Latin American judiciaries. These include increasingly prevalent rules and norms favoring tenure protections. Another important factor involves the growing number of judicial appointees who are elite lawyers, such as those from academia or private practice. Because they are unaffiliated with traditional networks of political power, these judges have arguably been more willing to act against autocrats’ wishes. 

Finally, several cases may be explained by the facts that (a) judges, like other political actors, seek to preserve their positions and (b) attacks on democratic institutions threaten those positions. In Mexico, for example, AMLO’s assault on the INE, by threatening free and fair elections, would have upset the balance of power between the executive and judiciary. A similar case could be made in Brazil, where judges sought to preserve not only their autonomy but their physical safety. No single factor can explain every judicial ruling. Together, however, they help shed light on why Latin American judiciaries have stood up to powerful and popular elected autocrats.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer

In Ukraine, inexpensive drones, software updated overnight, and weapons built in weeks instead of years have reshaped the front lines. In the Middle East, waves of missile and drone fire involving Iran, its regional neighbors, and the United States have tested air defenses and the economics of intercepting cheap threats. Both conflicts demonstrate that the advantage goes to those who can build, adapt, and field new technology fastest. Keeping pace takes more than new weapons. It takes a generation of technologists, founders, and public servants who understand the problem. On October 7, Stanford DEFCON set out to build that understanding, bringing together military officials, technology funders, and private industry leaders into one room on campus.

The day featured keynotes from former Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen; Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; and Owen West, director of the Defense Innovation Unit. Panels addressed the issues shaping modern conflict, from producing unmanned systems at scale to lessons shared by speakers who had traveled from Ukraine to describe building weapons under fire. Together with an advanced technology career fair the day before, which connected more than 400 students with 40 companies, the two days drew about 1,200 people.

The conference was sponsored by the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, but students ran it. Over several years, center director Joe Felter has built a network that links veterans, engineers, policy decisionmakers, and aspiring founders across Stanford’s schools. Members of that network raised funding from 22 sponsors, recruited speakers from the Pentagon to Taipei, and hosted more than a thousand guests, all while carrying their course loads.

We spoke with three of the event’s co-presidents, all second-year MBA students at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. They talked about how they pulled it off, their favorite moments, and their advice for students who want to work on the nation’s hardest security problems.

Meet the Event Co-Presidents

Ryan Casey, MBA '27, served for eight years as an infantry officer in the U.S. Marine Corps before coming to Stanford. 

Gordon Kim, MBA '27, is founder of Praetar Systems. Before Stanford, he served for ten years in the U.S. Army as an infantry and Special Forces officer.

Luke Zerrer, MBA '27, spent six years in the U.S. Army, most of it in Special Forces, and then worked as an engineer at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory on autonomous systems for air and missile defense.

What was your role in organizing the conference?

Ryan Casey: I was one of DEFCON’s co-presidents, and with the rest of the planning team I led our work recruiting panelists and participating companies. I also moderated two panels: “Effectiveness Under Fire: Command and Control, Communications, Maneuver, and Power for Contested Logistics in the Pacific,” and “Beyond the Valley: How the Government and Private Capital Are Underwriting National Security.”

Gordon Kim: I was the lead planner and one of DEFCON’s co-presidents. I was responsible for driving the conference’s vision and managing the full DEFCON team. I brought President Tsai Ing-wen to Stanford and moderated our fireside chat with her. I also moderated a discussion on Taiwan’s democracy, emerging technology, and the U.S.–Taiwan partnership with Director-General David C.H. Wu, Admiral Lee Hsi-ming, and Jeremy Chih-Cheng Chang.

Having lived and worked in Taiwan, I wanted students to hear directly from leaders who have shaped its future. Taiwan sits at the intersection of democracy, global trade, and critical technology. Understanding its importance is essential to understanding our own national security.

Luke Zerrer: I was one of this year’s co-presidents. I led sponsorship, working with the 22 companies and firms that funded the conference, and I helped with general logistics. On the day itself, I moderated two panels. “Mass, Autonomy, and Attrition” covered building and buying unmanned systems at scale, and “What Ukraine Taught Us” covered building weapons in weeks instead of years.

What were the highlights of the conference for you?

Kim: Moderating the fireside chat with President Tsai was a defining moment for me. We discussed how she helped shape Taiwan’s place in the world despite the constraints it faces. Her observation that sovereignty is a mindset and a value stayed with me. It captured the determination of people who insist on shaping their own future, and the resilience I came to admire while living in Taiwan.

I was also proud of what we accomplished as a student team. DEFCON drew more than 850 registered guests, and the advanced technology career fair the day before brought together more than 400 students and 40 companies.

Zerrer: The Ukraine panel is the one I will remember. Speakers traveled from a country at war to sit in a room at Stanford and tell students, founders, and investors what they have learned about building and fielding weapons under pressure. It is hard to get closer to the problem than that.

The other highlight was watching the whole day come together. We had three keynotes, from former President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, Gen. Dan Caine, and Owen West, plus a full day of panels. Students organized all of it while carrying a full course load.

Casey: For me, the highlight was seeing students from across the Stanford community come out, eager to learn and to be part of serving our nation. Most of these students have no prior military service. They still want to serve their country outside the uniform, in industry or government, and that is truly inspiring.

What has being part of the Gordian Knot community meant to you?

Zerrer: The Gordian Knot community is where my military and engineering background meets what I am learning at Stanford. It puts people from the military, engineering, policy, and investing in the same room, and it trusts students with real responsibility. Joe and the team let a group of students run a conference of this size, and that has been one of the best parts of my time here.

Casey: Being part of the DEFCON planning team, with the support of the Gordian Knot Center, has been the highlight of my time at Stanford so far. Under the leadership of Dr. Joe Felter and Jack Faherty, the center was instrumental in helping us plan and execute an operation as complicated as DEFCON. Their insight on national security and technology helped us build a day of discussion with leaders from across the national security community.

Kim: Gordian Knot has given me a place to carry my commitment to public service into a new chapter. After ten years in the Army, I came to Stanford interested in how entrepreneurship and technology could help address the national security challenges I had seen firsthand. This community has helped me turn that interest into action.

Through DEFCON and my work building Praetar Systems, I’ve connected with people who bring different skills but share a sense of responsibility for the future. What means the most to me is the community’s willingness to take students seriously, to give us meaningful responsibility and the support to do something with it. That trust changes what you believe you can accomplish while you’re still in school.

What advice do you have for students interested in the advanced technology sector and the Gordian Knot community?

Casey: I would ask them: Do you want to make a difference for our country, and do you want to work on the hardest problems facing it? Serving your country does not only mean signing up for military service. Solving the toughest problems our nation faces is admirable, whether you’re working for a company in the defense industrial base or as a federal civilian in national security. Both are honorable. We need young, motivated, mission-driven Americans serving at all levels.

Kim: Start with a problem you care about, and get close to the people who experience it. Understand what they need, where existing approaches fall short, and how your skills could help. There is room in this sector for engineers, entrepreneurs, policy thinkers, and people who can connect those disciplines.

Then show up and take responsibility. Attend a Gordian Knot event, join a project, volunteer to help organize something, and follow through. Anyone can contribute. DEFCON showed what students can accomplish when they take an ambitious idea seriously and commit to doing the work.

Zerrer: Show up and ask for real work. You do not need a military or technical background to contribute. DEFCON is run by students from across the university, and we learned most of what we did on the job: raising sponsorship, recruiting speakers, and hosting hundreds of people for a day.

I would also spend time with the people who use and build the technology. The fastest way I know to understand this sector is to listen to operators and founders describe the problems they are stuck on.

This article was supported by research using Anthropic Claude. All outputs were reviewed by humans and the final expression was produced by the authors.