⚖️ JUDICIAL 🔴 LAST MINUTE 📅 MAY 7, 2026

Supreme Court rejected the government's "per saltum" for the labor reform

The case will continue in lower instances, generating tension in the ruling party. Rosatti, Lorenzetti and Rosenkrantz signed the unanimous ruling that declared inadmissible the extraordinary appeal of the Attorney General's Office.

📘  What is per saltum and why did the government use it?

The per saltum – literally, 'leap of instance' in Latin – is an exceptional procedural mechanism that allows the Supreme Court to intervene directly in a judicial case without waiting for the usual route through the lower instances. It is, in other words, a legal shortcut enabled only in circumstances of extreme institutional urgency.

Article 257 bis of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the Nation establishes the requirements for its admissibility: that the case be processed under federal jurisdiction and that a 'notorious institutional gravity' is accredited. Both conditions must be met simultaneously. It is not enough to allege urgency or to maintain that the matter under discussion is of public importance.

❝  The per saltum is the last emergency tool of the Argentine judicial system. It is only enabled when the institutional gravity is manifest and the damage irreparable through ordinary channels.

In this case, the Attorney General's Office of the Treasury – the body that legally represents the national State – went to the per saltum on April 16, after the labor judge Raúl Horacio Ojeda of the National Labor Court No. 63 issued a precautionary measure that suspended the application of 82 articles of the labor reform. The Government argued that the situation was institutionally serious and asked the Court to rule without waiting for the exhaustion of ordinary remedies.

📋  The Court's ruling: what exactly it said

The text of the ruling is forceful and concise, as is usually the language of the highest court when it rejects an appeal in limine. The three judges who signed the resolution – Rosatti, Lorenzetti and Rosenkrantz – maintained:

The resolution was accompanied, according to judicial sources consulted by the main media, by an additional consideration: the Executive's request was also 'unofficial' since the labor reform was already in force at the time of the ruling. In effect, Chamber VIII of the National Labor Appeals Chamber had restored the full validity of the articles suspended on April 23, by granting suspensive effect to the appeal of the national State.

✅  Law 27.802 on Labor Modernization is currently IN FORCE. The Court considered that, given this context, the per saltum was additionally 'unofficial'.

From the procedural perspective, the Court's decision does not imply a substantive pronouncement on the constitutionality of the labor reform. The highest court did not evaluate whether or not the law is compatible with the National Constitution: it simply determined that the path chosen by the Government to access that definition – per saltum – did not meet the legal requirements to be admitted.

🕰️  Chronology of the conflict: from the sanction of the law to judicial rejection

To understand the scope of today's ruling, it is essential to reconstruct the procedural itinerary that led the Court to pronounce. The judicial saga of Law 27,802 is one of the most complex constitutional litigations of the year.

📜  Law 27.802: what reform and why did it generate so much controversy?

The Labor Modernization Law – published in the Official Gazette on March 6, 2026 – represents the most ambitious reform of Argentine labor law in decades. The text modifies the Employment Contract Law (No. 20,744), repeals the Telework Law and intervenes in more than thirty different regulations of the labor legal system.

Among its most controversial provisions are changes in the system of severance pay, modifications to union regulations, alterations to the social security system and the repeal of articles linked to the protection of the worker. From the Executive, the reform was presented as an instrument of deregulation necessary to generate employment and reduce labor litigation.

It was precisely this collision of arguments that led the CGT to file, days after the publication of the law, an action declaring unconstitutionality before the Labor Justice. The union, represented by its general secretaries Sola, Argüello and Jerónimo, maintained that the challenged articles modify the current labor regime and violate constitutional rights and guarantees.

⚖️  Judge Ojeda: the epicenter of the procedural dispute

Judge Raúl Horacio Ojeda, head of the National Labor Court No. 63, became the unexpected protagonist of this institutional conflict. On March 30, 2026, Ojeda accepted the precautionary measure requested by the CGT and suspended the questioned articles with general scope – a decision that set off alarms in the Casa Rosada and triggered the judicial strategy of the Executive.

Ojeda is a labor judge of first instance with a background in the Ministry of Labor during the Kirchner administration, where he served as chief adviser to then-Minister Juan Carlos Tomada. His profile was questioned by the ruling party, which pointed out alleged incompatibilities and sought to remove him from the file by questioning his competence to hear a case of these characteristics.

⚠️  Judge Ojeda resisted the orders of the Chamber to refer the file to the federal administrative litigation jurisdiction, a situation that forced the court to issue a peremptory order of 24 hours with authorization of non-working days.

The government's strategy to remove Ojeda was successful at the procedural level: the National Court of Appeals in Federal Administrative Litigation ruled that the case should be processed in its jurisdiction because it is a matter that exceeds classic labor law and involves the validity of a national law. The change of jurisdiction restricts the margin of action of the CGT, which had achieved its main judicial victory in the labor field.

👥  The actors in the conflict: who's who

📊  Political impact: a setback for the ruling party

The Court's decision was received in the ruling party as a new front of judicial tension, although government spokesmen tried to minimize its impact by pointing out that the labor reform remains fully in force. However, analysts and political operators agree that the rejection of the per saltum implies a relevant procedural defeat for the Executive.

❝  The Government loses the possibility of obtaining a quick and definitive definition from the Court. The legal uncertainty about the labour reform has been going on indefinitely.

The official strategy had a clear objective: to obtain from the Supreme Court a substantive definition that would shield the law against future judicial questions. When the per saltum is rejected, that objective is postponed and the case will have to go through the ordinary path – which can last for months or even years – before eventually reaching the highest court through the common route.

From the CGT, meanwhile, there was a nuanced reading. Sources from the labor federation told La Nacion that the highest court could have resolved the issue, and recalled that there are still pending pronouncements in the Labor Chamber, where the challenges of its members are being processed.

The Argentine Rural Society also has a presence in the litigation: it appeared before the courts to support the validity of Law 27,802 and request that its application not be suspended, showing the political-economic weight that the reform has for the business sector.

📍  Current status of the file: where we are today

With the per saltum rejected, the case is filed in the Federal Administrative Court No. 12, which must resolve the substance of the conflict: whether or not the challenged articles of Law 27,802 are compatible with the National Constitution. That resolution — which is expected to be appealed by any of the losing parties — could eventually reach the Supreme Court through the ordinary route.

Meanwhile, the labor reform is in force and employers and workers must adjust their relations to the new regulations, although with the uncertainty that the legal scenario could change if the federal court adopts a precautionary measure of suspension or orders the unconstitutionality of the questioned articles.

🧠  Legal analysis: what does the ruling really mean?

Beyond the immediate political result, the Court's ruling has legal implications that deserve a detailed analysis. Firstly, the highest court ratifies the exceptional nature of per saltum as a procedural tool: it is not enough that the case is important or that the Executive has an interest in a quick resolution. A 'notorious institutional gravity' is required, which, in this context, the judges considered that it was not duly accredited.

Second, the additional consideration of the 'inofficiousness' of the appeal reveals a pragmatic view: if the law was already in force at the time of ruling, the urgent basis that justifies the per saltum vanishes. The Court, in this sense, not only rejected the appeal for formal reasons, but also for reasons of procedural opportunity.

Third, it is relevant to note that the judgment was signed by only three of the five members of the Court. Judges Juan Carlos Maqueda and Ricardo Lorenzetti – the latter is a signatory – are the five members of the court. The absence of the signature of any of the justices may respond to reasons of recusal, excuse or simple coincidence of agenda, but it could be significant if the case eventually reaches the highest court through the ordinary route.

❝  The rejection of the per saltum does not define the constitutionality of the labor reform. It is a procedural defeat for the government, not a substantive defeat for the validity of Law 27,802.

🔮  What can happen from here on out? Possible scenarios

Scenario 1: The federal administrative jurisdiction rules in favor of constitutionality

If Federal Court No. 12 and eventually the Contentious Administrative Chamber validate the constitutionality of the law, the CGT could file an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court, which in that case would intervene through the ordinary channels. This scenario is the most favorable for the government.

Scenario 2: The federal jurisdiction issues a new suspensive injunction

Nothing prevents the new court hearing the case from issuing a new precautionary measure that suspends – again – the articles in question. In that case, the government could appeal again and the cycle would be repeated, although now in the federal jurisdiction.

Scenario 3: The CGT challenges the change of jurisdiction before the Court

The labor federation has already indicated that it raised the unconstitutionality of the law of precautionary measures against the State that empowered the Federal Court to resolve questions of jurisdiction. If that challenge succeeds, the file could return to the labor jurisdiction, reversing the procedural progress achieved by the Government.

Scenario 4: Out-of-court agreement between the Government and CGT

In the context of the parity negotiations and the political dynamics, a scenario of understanding that unlocks the conflict through legislative or regulatory modifications to the most controversial articles of the law cannot be ruled out.

❓  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

❓  What is a per saltum in Argentine law?

Per saltum is an exceptional procedural remedy that allows the Supreme Court to intervene directly in a case without waiting for the exhaustion of intermediate instances. It is regulated in Article 257 bis of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and only applies when there is 'notorious institutional gravity'. It is a tool of very restricted use in Argentine judicial practice.

❓  Why did the Court reject the government's per saltum?

The Court declared the appeal 'inadmissible' on the grounds that the requirements of Article 257 bis of the CPCCN were not met. Additionally, it pointed out that the request was 'unofficial' since Law 27,802 was already in force at the time of resolution, which made the urgent intervention that the Government demanded unnecessary.

❓  Is Law 27,802 on labor reform in force today?

Yes. The law has been fully in force since April 23, 2026, when Chamber VIII of the National Labor Appeals Chamber granted suspensive effect to the State's appeal, lifting Judge Ojeda's precautionary measure. The rejection of per saltum does not change this situation.

❓  What articles did the CGT question and why?

The CGT challenged more than 80 articles of the law that, according to the labor federation, modify the employment contract regime, union rules, the social security system and access to labor justice in a regressive manner. He argued that these changes violate the principle of progressivity of social rights and freedom of association, both with constitutional support.

❓  Who are the three judges who signed the ruling?

The ruling was signed by Horacio Rosatti (president of the Court), Ricardo Lorenzetti and Carlos Rosenkrantz. The three make up the Supreme Court and formed a unanimous decision in the rejection of the extraordinary appeal by leap of instance presented by the Attorney General's Office.

❓  What happens now with the case?

The file continues its processing in the Federal Administrative Court No. 12, which must resolve the substance of the conflict: whether or not the questioned articles of Law 27,802 are constitutional. That decision may be appealed and eventually reach the Supreme Court through the ordinary route.

🔍  Advanced Technical SEO Sheet

🏗️ SEO Content Structure: Unique H1 with Main Keyword · H2 with LSI semantic variants · E-E-A-T (Expertise, Experience, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) Content · Tables with structured data · FAQ with Schema FAQPage · Target page time: >5 min · Keyword density: 1–2% · Images with semantic alt text · Text > 2,500 words to compete in SERPs · Backlinking to primary sources (CSJN, Official Gazette, CGT)

⚖️ A ruling that defines the pace of the case, not its final destination

The rejection of per saltum by the Supreme Court is not the end point of the judicial saga around Law 27,802. It is, rather, a sign that the highest court is not willing to be used as an express arbiter of disputes that still have a path in the lower instances. The labor reform is still in force, the CGT is not resigning its legal strategy, and the contentious-administrative jurisdiction will now have to bear the weight of a decision that will define the Argentine labor map in the coming years. The Court, meanwhile, waits.

Close