The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) in Mexico has ruled that certain requirements for obtaining a pension due to cohabitation, as dictated by the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE), are unconstitutional. These requirements notably included demonstrating that a couple had lived together for at least five years or had a child together. This ruling overturns a long-standing criterion that had been in place for over a decade, reflecting a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding cohabitation and pension rights.

The decision, supported by a majority of six votes, was articulated by Minister Irving Espinosa Betanzo, who emphasized the need for the law to reflect contemporary realities in Mexican society. According to the ruling, it is unjust to treat individuals who are in a civil marriage differently from those who are in a cohabiting relationship. This acknowledgement of cohabiting arrangements as valid could pave the way for greater equality in legal recognition of familial structures beyond traditional marriage.

This landmark ruling originated from an amparo case in which a woman was denied a pension despite a three-year relationship with her partner. The court's decision not only addresses issues of fairness and equality but also has potential implications for countless couples affected by the previous restrictive laws, allowing them greater access to pensions and social security benefits that were previously denied or difficult to obtain due to stringent requirements.