The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared “inadmissible” the extraordinary appeal for jumping of instance that the National State had filed in the case initiated by the General Confederation of Labor regarding the Labor Reform.
Textually, The Supreme Court ruled: “In the opinion of this Court, the requirements that, in accordance with the provisions of article 257 bis of the National Civil and Commercial Procedure Code, are not observed. They enable the origin of the route whose opening is promoted through the instance jump resource. Therefore, the appeal filed is declared inadmissible.”
The Executive’s strategy sought to skip the ordinary instance and obtain a favorable resolution from the Court before the first instance judge issued his ruling. But the supreme triumvirs unanimously blocked the Government’s legal strategy.
The ruling, dated May 7, 2026 and digitally signed by judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti, is as brief as it is forceful.
It was maintained that “the requirements that enable the origin of the route” attempted by the State are not observed.
Article 257 bis of the National Civil and Commercial Procedure Code regulates this exceptional figure. The leap of instance only proceeds in the event of extreme institutional gravity and irreparable damage that does not allow delays. The Superior Court understood that these conditions were not verified.
The representation of the National State was led by Dr. Mayra Rafaela Cosentino, from the Secretariat of Labor, Employment and Social Security of the Ministry of Human Capital. The rejection leaves the Government with no shortcuts before labor justice.
In their resolution, the ministers ordered: “Be notified and archived.” With that brief formula, the Court closed the door to the Executive’s attempt to circumvent the ordinary process, which must now follow its natural course.
The declaratory action of the CGT seeks for Justice to rule on the legality of a measure by the Executive Branch in labor matters. The labor union thus reserves its procedural position in the first instance, where the file will remain under judicial analysis.
