Retired judge arrested over 2014 disappearance of 43 students in Mexico
The arrest is related to the 'disappearance of recordings from cameras' placed in the Palace of Justice in Iguala, in the Mexican State of Guerrero, where the students were last seen.
Marín served as the president of the Superior Court of Justice of Guerrero at the time of the case. Arrest warrants were issued in August of 2022 for military commanders, police officers, and 'five administrative and judicial authorities from the state of Guerrero,' though at the time, the Attorney General's Office (FGR) did not identify the individuals allegedly involved.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum spoke about Marin's arrest in Friday morning press conference. She said that the special prosecutor's office is investigating why videos related to the case were erased, an issue she noted families of those who disappeared in 2014 have been raising for a long time.
Sheinbaum replaced Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024, who left the presidency without fulfilling a key pledge to uncover the truth regarding the 2014 disappearances of 43 students.
The case of the missing students has long gripped Mexico. The students, all males at the local Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers' College, were traveling through the southwestern city of Iguala on September 26, 2014 when their bus was stopped by local police and military forces. Exactly what transpired after that interaction is still unknown, but photos from the scene show a bullet-riddled bus.
A government report from 2022 concluded that the vanished students were victims of 'state sponsored crime.' In 2023, a report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico found that Mexico's Armed Forces did not provide all the information requested by an independent panel investigating the disappearance. That same year, experts on that panel looking into the case quit, citing 'lack of information,' 'secrecy' and 'hidden evidence' surrounding their investigative efforts.
For grieving families, the arrest reinforces suspicions of a possible cover-up related to the 2014 disappearances. Felipe de la Cruz, one of the Ayotzinapa parents and spokesperson for the group of parents of the disappeared, told CNN on Thursday that a 'pact of silence continues to reign' in the area.
'For us, it is very important that first of all, the investigation continues, and that work continues to be done,' de la Cruz added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
CHARLEBOIS: CUSMA-Exempt — the 93% Mirage
Since Aug. 1, many Canadian commentators have downplayed the impact of the 35% tariffs the United States has imposed on select Canadian goods, citing the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and its oft-repeated claim that 90% to 93% of Canadian exports remain exempt. While technically true, this statistic masks the much more complicated — and far less reassuring —reality for Canada's agri-food sector. A prominent December 2024 study from the University of Sherbrooke concluded that 93% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are tariff-exempt. On paper, that number may seem comforting. But it tells only part of the story — especially when it comes to food. Tariff exemptions are not automatic. To qualify for duty-free access under CUSMA, Canadian agri-food products must meet strict rules of origin and complex documentation standards. For many small and mid-sized food processors, these bureaucratic hurdles are burdensome and costly. Products with mixed or processed ingredients — such as snack bars, frozen meals, or nut butters —often fall into grey zones that create uncertainty at the border. The result? Products deemed 'exempt' in theory may still be delayed, penalized, or rejected in practice. Recommended video Most analyses, including the Sherbrooke study, fail to account for this nuance. As a result, the 93% figure is not only misleading — it's largely irrelevant for food companies navigating real-world trade. Worse still, these studies often overlook the geopolitical dynamics shaping food trade. Under President Donald Trump, tariffs have become less about technical qualifications and more about political leverage. The real risk today isn't simply tariffs themselves — it's the mere threat of tariffs. Many Canadian food exporters have already lost long-standing American customers spooked by the unpredictability of trade with Canada. Even in the absence of formal tariffs, the perception of risk is enough to drive U.S. buyers toward domestic suppliers. That's the real game Trump is playing — and winning. Whether a product qualifies for exemption no longer matters if market confidence is eroded. And make no mistake: for the food industry, where net margins are often razor-thin — typically in the range of 2% to 10% — a 35% tariff is not just inconvenient; it's existential. It can erase profitability overnight, making entire product lines unviable and undermining long-term investment. There is no country in the world currently protected by trade agreements in any meaningful way. If you provoke Washington, tariffs — or their threat — will follow. Since Trump's return, no countries have drawn more retaliatory attention than China and Canada. Both have responded with countermeasures, unlike Japan, South Korea, the U.K., or the European Union — all of which have successfully negotiated more stable trade terms and now face significantly lower tariff exposure than Canada. Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister in March, Canada has faced more tariffs from the U.S., not fewer. His strategy — if it can be called that — appears to be waiting for the U.S. economy to falter under the weight of its own tariffs. But that's a dangerous gamble. The American economy, for all its recent job market volatility, remains remarkably resilient. Betting against it has never been a winning strategy — just ask Warren Buffett. Some Canadians might believe that reduced access to U.S. markets will lead to food surpluses here at home, pushing prices down. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how food economics work. Canadian food exporters rely on scale. Export markets allow companies to spread fixed costs and keep domestic prices affordable. If demand from U.S. buyers dries up, Canadian processors will have no choice but to raise prices domestically to stay afloat. The result? Higher—not lower—food prices for Canadian consumers. In short, the 93% tariff exemption statistic may provide political cover or academic reassurance, but it is a mirage. For those of us who work with food companies, study supply chains, and understand export-driven pricing models, the message is clear: Canada's food economy is far more exposed — and vulnerable — than many realize. — Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is Director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and Visiting Scholar at McGill University.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
What to know about Trump's court battle over tariffs
A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump 's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small U.S. businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the Supreme Court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to U.S. harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the U.S. has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Canadian trade minister sees ‘great deal of common ground' with US
Canadian Minister for U.S.-Canada Trade Dominic LeBlanc expressed optimism on Sunday about the prospects of a trade deal between the two countries — even as President Trump announced he would impose 35 percent tariffs on goods from the neighboring country. 'We were obviously, obviously disappointed by that decision. We believe there's a great deal of common ground between the United States and Canada in terms of building two strong economies that work well together,' LeBlanc said in an interview on CBS News's 'Face the Nation.' LeBlanc spent last week in Washington, D.C. trying to hammer out a trade deal. He left without a resolution, after Trump announced new tariffs on Canadian goods not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. But LeBlanc praised his counterparts, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, for their efforts, saying they 'engaged with us in constructive, cordial conversations, so we're prepared to stick around and do the work needed.' 'But we remain very optimistic,' he added. LeBlanc said he expects Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to speak with Trump in the coming days. 'I would expect the Prime Minister will have a conversation with the President over the next number of days. That's certainly my plan, again with Secretary Lutnick, recognizing that we think there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down some of these tariffs, provide greater certainty to investment,' he said in the interview. LeBlanc noted that Canada passed a similar bill to the U.S. president's agenda-setting 'one big, beautiful bill,' which Trump signed into law one month ago. LeBlanc said the Canadian bill is projected to unlock up to $500 billion in investments in Canada, which would 'offer huge opportunities to American businesses as well.' 'So, we think there's a great deal- a great deal to work on together,' he added.
