Opposition lawmakers seek to overturn Milei’s sweeping 2023 deregulation decree Standoff highlights tensions over foreign investment, national sovereignty and the limits of presidential power Argentina’s President Javier Milei faces a renewed showdown with Congress over his sweeping economic deregulation decree as opposition lawmakers seek to overturn the measure following a Supreme Court ruling that temporarily reinstated restrictions on foreign ownership of rural land.

The dispute centers on Decree of Necessity and Urgency 70/2023, known as DNU 70/2023, which Milei signed shortly after taking office in December 2023. The measure introduced extensive changes to Argentina’s legal and economic framework, including the repeal of a law restricting foreign ownership of rural land.

The latest judicial decision has complicated the parliamentary debate ahead of a special session called by opposition lawmakers for Thursday.

The governing party has scheduled a separate session for Oct. 21 as both sides pursue different approaches to land ownership rules and the broader decree. What is Milei’s sweeping decree?

Milei signed DNU 70/2023, titled “Bases for the Reconstruction of the Argentine Economy,” on Dec. 20, 2023. It was published in Argentina’s Official Gazette the following day.

The decree’s preamble describes Argentina as facing a severe economic and social crisis and argues that urgent structural reforms are needed. It identifies excessive regulation and state intervention as obstacles to economic activity and investment.

Article 2 states that the government will promote an economic system based on free decisions, competition, private property and the constitutional principles of the free movement of goods, services and labor.

The decree changes or repeals provisions across numerous sectors, including foreign trade, agriculture, labor relations, health care, housing rentals and commercial activity. The government presented it as part of a broader effort to reduce state intervention, deregulate the economy and encourage private investment.

One of its most controversial provisions is Article 154, which repeals Law 26,737, known as the Rural Land Law. Enacted in 2011, the law established limits on foreign ownership of rural property.

The government argued that these restrictions constrained property rights and investment in agriculture. Opponents questioned whether such a significant change should have been introduced through an emergency decree rather than ordinary legislation.

Argentina’s Constitution allows presidents to issue decrees of necessity and urgency under exceptional circumstances, subject to specific restrictions and congressional review.

The breadth of DNU 70/2023 has raised questions about the extent to which the executive can modify existing laws without ordinary legislative approval. Why is foreign ownership of rural land controversial?

Argentina’s Rural Land Law established restrictions on foreign ownership to limit land concentration and protect national interests linked to territory and natural resources.

The law set a general ceiling of 15% for foreign ownership of rural land at the national, provincial and departmental levels.

It also stipulated that no single foreign nationality could account for more than 30% of the permitted foreign-owned In addition, the legislation limited a single foreign owner to 1,000 hectares in Argentina’s core agricultural zone, or an equivalent area elsewhere, depending on the location. It also restricted foreign ownership of certain properties involving significant bodies of water and areas near international borders.

Supporters of the law argue that these safeguards protect Argentina’s territorial interests, agricultural resources and control over strategically important areas.

They also warn about land concentration and the potential consequences for local communities and access to natural resources.

The government and supporters of deregulation argue that removing the restrictions could attract foreign capital, facilitate agricultural investment and expand productive activity.

The debate therefore concerns not only who can purchase farmland but also how Argentina balances investment opportunities with safeguards involving land, water resources and border areas.

The issue had already become contentious during congressional discussions over a separate bill concerning private property.

According to Argentine fact-checking organization Chequeado, the government later proposed allowing foreign ownership of up to 25% of rural land at the provincial level rather than eliminating all restrictions.

The proposal retained a provincial ceiling while allowing greater room for foreign ownership within individual departments or municipalities.

The government ultimately withdrew the chapter concerning land restrictions after failing to secure sufficient support, highlighting the political difficulties of changing the rules through ordinary legislation. How did the Supreme Court change the dispute?

The legal battle over the repeal took a new turn with two Supreme Court decisions on Sept. 29 and Oct. 9.

Although both concerned challenges to the repeal, they involved separate proceedings and different legal arguments.

On Sept. 29, the Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling by the Federal Court of Appeals in La Plata that had declared the repeal unconstitutional. The case had been brought by the Center for Malvinas Islands War Veterans, known as CECIM.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim because it found that CECIM lacked the legal standing required to bring the case.

The ruling did not determine whether Milei could constitutionally repeal the Rural Land Law through an emergency decree.

The decision removed that particular judicial obstacle, leaving the repeal in effect at that stage.

The situation changed on Oct. 9, when the Supreme Court temporarily suspended the effects of Article 154 in a separate proceeding involving the environmental organization Arbol de Pie and other claimants, including former senator and Río Negro provincial legislator María Magdalena Odarda. The claimants raised different legal arguments, including concerns related to environmental protection.

The court sent the case back to the Federal Court in Bariloche, where a judge must determine whether the claimants have legal standing and consider their request for precautionary relief.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court provisionally suspended the repeal provision to prevent potential irreparable harm while the proceedings continue. The measure temporarily restored the Rural Land Law’s restrictions but did not resolve whether repealing the law through DNU 70/2023 was constitutional.

The decision was not unanimous. Justice Carlos Rosenkrantz opposed the interim suspension, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to issue such a measure before the lower court had ruled on the request.

The distinction between the two rulings is central to the dispute. The September decision concerned the legal standing of one claimant, while the October ruling provided interim relief in a separate case. Neither constituted a final decision on the constitutionality of repealing the law through the decree. Can Congress overturn Milei’s decree?

Opposition lawmakers have called a special session of the Chamber of Deputies for Oct. 15 to seek rejection of DNU 70/2023. Their initiative extends beyond the Rural Land Law, targeting the entire decree and its changes across numerous sectors of Argentina’s economy.

The Senate rejected the decree in March 2024, but the Chamber of Deputies has not voted on it. A rejection by the lower house would complete the parliamentary process required to overturn the measure under Argentina’s current legal framework.

Under Law 26,122, Congress reviews decrees of necessity and urgency through a specific procedure. The Permanent Bicameral Committee examines each decree and submits its conclusions to both chambers.

Lawmakers cannot amend individual articles through this review mechanism. Each chamber must accept or reject the decree as a whole. Its formal rejection by both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate results in its repeal while preserving rights acquired during its validity.

This creates a political dilemma for lawmakers who oppose the repeal of the Rural Land Law but support other provisions of DNU 70/2023. Rejecting the decree would also reverse its other reforms, making the vote a broader judgment on Milei’s economic program.

The opposition must secure sufficient support to open the session and then obtain the votes needed to reject the decree.

Negotiations with provincial and centrist blocs are particularly important, as some lawmakers may oppose the removal of foreign land ownership restrictions while remaining reluctant to reverse the government’s wider economic reforms.

The Supreme Court’s temporary suspension of Article 154 adds another consideration to those negotiations. However, the court has not ruled on the broader legal status of the decree or the scope of presidential emergency powers.

The governing party has called a separate session for Oct. 21, with proposals concerning private property and other policy issues on the agenda. The government can also seek changes to land ownership rules through ordinary legislation, subject to congressional debate and voting.

Political implications The confrontation highlights competing views on foreign investment, national control of rural land and the limits of presidential emergency powers.

For Milei’s government, deregulation is a central component of its economic program intended to reduce state intervention and encourage investment. Opponents argue that restrictions on foreign land ownership protect national interests, natural resources and strategically important territory.

The dispute also underscores the role of Argentina’s legislative and judicial branches in checking executive power. The Supreme Court’s interim measure has temporarily restored the land restrictions without settling the constitutional challenge, while Congress faces a separate decision on the decree as a whole.

The Oct. 15 and Oct. 21 sessions will provide the next opportunities for lawmakers to advance their competing strategies. Their outcomes remain uncertain as of Oct. 13.

Ultimately, the dispute will test the reach of Milei’s deregulation agenda and Congress’s ability to scrutinize presidential decrees. The future of the Rural Land Law will depend on the ongoing judicial proceedings and decisions by lawmakers.