Interpretation by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice
On September 15, 2024, the so-called “Judicial Reform” was published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (Official Gazette of the Federation). Among other changes, it amended Section II of Article 107 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The amendment expressly incorporated the prohibition against granting general effects (erga omnes) in judgments rendered in amparo proceedings that declare the unconstitutionality of general norms.
Subsequently, on August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice (“SCJN”) published two binding precedents (jurisprudencias) in the Federal Judicial Weekly, interpreting the scope of this constitutional prohibition. Both criteria stem from the judgment issued in Amparo en Revisión 576/2023, resolved by the First Chamber of the SCJN on May 21, 2025, by a majority of four votes.
The underlying amparo was filed by a civil association against a state-level administrative agreement that established parameters and guidelines on environmental matters. The District Judge denied the amparo, leading to the constitutional issue being reviewed by the First Chamber of the SCJN through the appeal filed by the association.
Both binding precedents are discussed and analyzed below:
1. Jurisprudence 1a./J. 160/2025. The first ruling centered on determining whether the prohibition set forth in Section II of Article 107 of the Constitution could be interpreted as a ground for inadmissibility in amparo proceedings.
The First Chamber ruled that the prohibition does not constitute a ground for inadmissibility, as it imposes a remedy limitation, not a procedural one. Consequently, even if a judgment in amparo may no longer produce erga omnes effects when challenging general norms, this does not preclude the possibility of a substantive ruling or the activation of other constitutional mechanisms such as a General Declaration of Unconstitutionality.
In other words, the Chamber clarified that the prohibition in Section II of Article 107 does not affect the admissibility of amparo proceedings against general norms. It merely limits the judge’s ability to grant general effects in the event of a favorable ruling. Therefore, other avenues —such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality— remain available to challenge unconstitutional norms. The precedent is transcribed below:
“AMPARO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STATUTORY LAWS. ARTICLE 107, SECTION II, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AS AMENDED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2024, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GROUND FOR INADMISSIBILITY
Facts: A civil association filed an amparo lawsuit against an agreement issued by a state administrative authority that established activation parameters for environmental contingencies. The plaintiff alleged that the agreement violated the right to a healthy environment by establishing thresholds higher than those set forth in the Mexican Official Standards. The District Judge denied the amparo, and therefore, the issue of constitutionality was submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation through the appeal for review filed by the plaintiff. The analysis of the effects of the judgment requiered determining whether the amendment to article 107, section II, of the Federal Constitution, which occurred on September 15, 2024, prevented the Supreme Court from hearing the merits of the case because it allegedly constituted a ground of inadmissibility.
Legal Criterion: The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice determined that the amendment to article 107, section II, of the Constitution, which prohibits granting general effects in the sentences that declare the unconstitutionality of a general rule, cannot be interpreted as a cause of inadmissibility of the amparo proceeding, since it establishes a limitation of remedies, not of procedure.
Justification: In the amparo lawsuit against laws, the amparo courts may not –in any case– interpret that the new wording of article 107, section II, of the Federal Constitution leads to have as updated an unnamed ground of inadmissibility derived from article 61, section XXIII, of the Amparo Law. This is because the constitutional reform published on September 15, 2024, establishes only a limitation on the remedies available when a general norm is declared unconstitutional. However, it does not render the amparo proceeding inadmissible, even if granting general effects is no longer possible. This means that even in those cases where it is legally unfeasible to disassociate only the plaintiff from the effects of a general rule declared unconstitutional -as it usually happens in the case of rules that generate environmental consequences-, there will be no impediment for the amparo court to rule on the unconstitutionality of the challenged rule, since it would imply emptying of content other remedies that the Constitution itself and the Amparo Law provide for the annulment of general rules, such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality. In this sense, even though the amparo judgment may not have an immediate effect on the legal sphere of the plaintiff or of other persons possibly benefiting from the erga omnes effects -now prohibited- the amparo court cannot close the door to the possibility that the remedy of the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality -as a means of dialogic constitutional control- be initiated and culminate in an eventual modification or annulment of the rule.
Precedent: 1a./J. 160/2025 (11th Epoch) Source: Federal Judicial Weekly (Semanario Judicial de la Federación). Type: Binding Precedent (Jurisprudencia). Chamber: First Chamber. Digital Record: 2030836.”
(Translation and emphasis are the author’s own.)
2. Jurisprudence 1a./J. 161/2025. The second precedent clarified the scope of the prohibition established in Section II of Article 107 of the Constitution, particularly with respect to meaning of the term “general norms”.
The First Chamber held that the concept of “general norm” under Section II of Article 107 must be interpreted in a strictly formal sense. In other words, the constitutional prohibition against granting general effects applies only to norms issued by a formally legislative body. Therefore, the restriction does not extend to administrative acts of a legislative nature, even if such acts are general, abstract, or permanent in character.
In other words, the First Chamber clarified that the constitutional restriction is limited to statutes formally enacted by the legislative branch.. It does not encompass general administrative acts such as regulations, guidelines, or resolutions issued by executive authorities. This interpretation preserves the ability of individuals to seek amparo relief with general effects against administrative regulations that violate constitutional rights.. At the same time, it avoids elevating administrative norms to the rank of law. The precedent is transcribed below:
“GENERAL NORMS CHALLENGED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS. THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 107, SECTION II, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REFERS EXCLUSIVELY TO NORMS ISSUED BY A FORMALLY LEGISLATIVE BODY.
Facts: A civil association filed an amparo lawsuit against an agreement issued by a state administrative authority that established activation parameters for environmental contingencies. The plaintiff alleged that such agreement violated the right to a healthy environment by establishing thresholds higher than those established in the Mexican Official Standards. The District Judge denied the amparo, so the issue of constitutionality was submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice through the appeal for review filed by the plaintiff. In the analysis of the effects of the amparo granted, the First Chamber examined whether the challenged act should be considered a “general rule” for purposes of the constitutional prohibition of establishing general effects in amparo judgments.
Legal Criterion: The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined that for purposes of the amparo proceeding, the concept of “general rule” referred to in Article 107, section II, of the Federal Constitution, as amended on September 15, 2024, must be understood in a formal sense. That is, as a rule issued by a formally legislative body. Therefore, administrative acts with characteristics of generality, permanence and abstraction do not fall within the constitutional assumption that prevents decreeing general effects in an amparo judgment.
Justification: The Supreme Court has recognized that the concept of “general norm” may adopt diverse meanings depending on the means of constitutional control in which it is used, a distinction that responds to the need to preserve the principle of division of powers and the legitimacy of the control system. In this context, the constitutional reform of September 15, sought to restrict the power of the amparo courts to issue judgments with general effects with respect to general rules. Its purpose was to limit the material annulment of laws to the mechanisms expressly provided for in article 105 of the Constitution or, where applicable, by means of a general declaration of unconstitutionality. In congruence with this purpose -and in the context of this prohibition- it is considered that the concept of general norm applicable to the amparo proceeding must be understood in its formal sense, referring exclusively to those norms issued by legislative bodies. In Mexico’s constitutional democracy, congress has the power to issue laws; while administrative authorities are bound to comply by under the principle of legality. Accepting a material definition of the concept of general norm that includes administrative acts with characteristics of generality, abstraction and permanence would have two problematic consequences. First, it would allow a single administrative regulation to override legislation enacted by Congress. Second, it would strip the Judiciary of its power to guarantee that the actions of the public administration conform to the mandates democratically adopted by the legislator.
Precedent: 1a./J. 161/2025 (11th Epoch). Source: Federal Judicial Weekly (Semanario Judicial de la Federación). Type: Binding Precedent (Jurisprudencia). Chamber: First Chamber. Digital Record: 2030848.”
(Translation and emphasis are the author’s own.)
Although the “Judicial Reform” introduced a constitutional prohibition against granting erga omnes effects in amparo judgments that declare the unconstitutionality of general norms, the two binding precedents published on August 8, 2025, provide a nuanced interpretation of this limitation:
a) First, the Court confirmed that amparo remains procedurally admissible when challenging the constitutionality of general norms. The restriction in Article 107, Section II, merely limits the remedial scope—not the admissibility—of the proceeding. Therefore, mechanisms such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality remain available as avenues for broader constitutional relief.
b) Second, the Court limited the substantive reach of the prohibition, holding that the term “general norms” under Article 107 refers solely to statutory laws issued by the legislative branch, thereby excluding general administrative acts from the constitutional restriction.
Taken together, both precedents establish a balanced framework for interpreting Article 107, Section II. They preserve the admissibility of amparo actions against general norms and confine the scope of the prohibition to formally enacted laws. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed amparo’s role as a constitutional control mechanism in the face of unconstitutional regulatory provisions.
Both binding precedents are discussed and analyzed below:
1. Jurisprudence 1a./J. 160/2025. The first ruling centered on determining whether the prohibition set forth in Section II of Article 107 of the Constitution could be interpreted as a ground for inadmissibility in amparo proceedings.
The First Chamber ruled that the prohibition does not constitute a ground for inadmissibility, as it imposes a remedy limitation, not a procedural one. Consequently, even if a judgment in amparo may no longer produce erga omnes effects when challenging general norms, this does not preclude the possibility of a substantive ruling or the activation of other constitutional mechanisms such as a General Declaration of Unconstitutionality.
In other words, the Chamber clarified that the prohibition in Section II of Article 107 does not affect the admissibility of amparo proceedings against general norms. It merely limits the judge’s ability to grant general effects in the event of a favorable ruling. Therefore, other avenues —such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality— remain available to challenge unconstitutional norms.
Exerpt:
“AMPARO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STATUTORY LAWS. ARTICLE 107, SECTION II, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AS AMENDED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2024, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GROUND FOR INADMISSIBILITY
Facts: A civil association filed an amparo lawsuit against an agreement issued by a state administrative authority that established activation parameters for environmental contingencies. The plaintiff alleged that the agreement violated the right to a healthy environment by establishing thresholds higher than those set forth in the Mexican Official Standards. The District Judge denied the amparo, and therefore, the issue of constitutionality was submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation through the appeal for review filed by the plaintiff. The analysis of the effects of the judgment requiered determining whether the amendment to article 107, section II, of the Federal Constitution, which occurred on September 15, 2024, prevented the Supreme Court from hearing the merits of the case because it allegedly constituted a ground of inadmissibility.
Legal Criterion: The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice determined that the amendment to article 107, section II, of the Constitution, which prohibits granting general effects in the sentences that declare the unconstitutionality of a general rule, cannot be interpreted as a cause of inadmissibility of the amparo proceeding, since it establishes a limitation of remedies, not of procedure.
Justification: In the amparo lawsuit against laws, the amparo courts may not –in any case– interpret that the new wording of article 107, section II, of the Federal Constitution leads to have as updated an unnamed ground of inadmissibility derived from article 61, section XXIII, of the Amparo Law. This is because the constitutional reform published on September 15, 2024, establishes only a limitation on the remedies available when a general norm is declared unconstitutional. However, it does not render the amparo proceeding inadmissible, even if granting general effects is no longer possible. This means that even in those cases where it is legally unfeasible to disassociate only the plaintiff from the effects of a general rule declared unconstitutional -as it usually happens in the case of rules that generate environmental consequences-, there will be no impediment for the amparo court to rule on the unconstitutionality of the challenged rule, since it would imply emptying of content other remedies that the Constitution itself and the Amparo Law provide for the annulment of general rules, such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality. In this sense, even though the amparo judgment may not have an immediate effect on the legal sphere of the plaintiff or of other persons possibly benefiting from the erga omnes effects -now prohibited- the amparo court cannot close the door to the possibility that the remedy of the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality -as a means of dialogic constitutional control- be initiated and culminate in an eventual modification or annulment of the rule.
Precedent: 1a./J. 160/2025 (11th Epoch) Source: Federal Judicial Weekly (Semanario Judicial de la Federación). Type: Binding Precedent (Jurisprudencia). Chamber: First Chamber. Digital Record: 2030836.”
(Translation and emphasis are the author’s own.)
2. Jurisprudence 1a./J. 161/2025. The second precedent clarified the scope of the prohibition established in Section II of Article 107 of the Constitution, particularly with respect to meaning of the term “general norms”.
The First Chamber held that the concept of “general norm” under Section II of Article 107 must be interpreted in a strictly formal sense. In other words, the constitutional prohibition against granting general effects applies only to norms issued by a formally legislative body. Therefore, the restriction does not extend to administrative acts of a legislative nature, even if such acts are general, abstract, or permanent in character.
In other words, the First Chamber clarified that the constitutional restriction is limited to statutes formally enacted by the legislative branch. It does not encompass general administrative acts such as regulations, guidelines, or resolutions issued by executive authorities. This interpretation preserves the ability of individuals to seek amparo relief with general effects against administrative regulations that violate constitutional rights. At the same time, it avoids elevating administrative norms to the rank of law.
Excerpt:
“GENERAL NORMS CHALLENGED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS. THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 107, SECTION II, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REFERS EXCLUSIVELY TO NORMS ISSUED BY A FORMALLY LEGISLATIVE BODY.
Facts: A civil association filed an amparo lawsuit against an agreement issued by a state administrative authority that established activation parameters for environmental contingencies. The plaintiff alleged that such agreement violated the right to a healthy environment by establishing thresholds higher than those established in the Mexican Official Standards. The District Judge denied the amparo, so the issue of constitutionality was submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice through the appeal for review filed by the plaintiff. In the analysis of the effects of the amparo granted, the First Chamber examined whether the challenged act should be considered a “general rule” for purposes of the constitutional prohibition of establishing general effects in amparo judgments.
Legal Criterion: The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined that for purposes of the amparo proceeding, the concept of “general rule” referred to in Article 107, section II, of the Federal Constitution, as amended on September 15, 2024, must be understood in a formal sense. That is, as a rule issued by a formally legislative body. Therefore, administrative acts with characteristics of generality, permanence and abstraction do not fall within the constitutional assumption that prevents decreeing general effects in an amparo judgment.
Justification: The Supreme Court has recognized that the concept of “general norm” may adopt diverse meanings depending on the means of constitutional control in which it is used, a distinction that responds to the need to preserve the principle of division of powers and the legitimacy of the control system. In this context, the constitutional reform of September 15, sought to restrict the power of the amparo courts to issue judgments with general effects with respect to general rules. Its purpose was to limit the material annulment of laws to the mechanisms expressly provided for in article 105 of the Constitution or, where applicable, by means of a general declaration of unconstitutionality. In congruence with this purpose -and in the context of this prohibition- it is considered that the concept of general norm applicable to the amparo proceeding must be understood in its formal sense, referring exclusively to those norms issued by legislative bodies. In Mexico’s constitutional democracy, congress has the power to issue laws; while administrative authorities are bound to comply by under the principle of legality. Accepting a material definition of the concept of general norm that includes administrative acts with characteristics of generality, abstraction and permanence would have two problematic consequences. First, it would allow a single administrative regulation to override legislation enacted by Congress. Second, it would strip the Judiciary of its power to guarantee that the actions of the public administration conform to the mandates democratically adopted by the legislator.
Precedent: 1a./J. 161/2025 (11th Epoch). Source: Federal Judicial Weekly (Semanario Judicial de la Federación). Type: Binding Precedent (Jurisprudencia). Chamber: First Chamber. Digital Record: 2030848.”
(Translation and emphasis are the author’s own.)
Although the “Judicial Reform” introduced a constitutional prohibition against granting erga omnes effects in amparo judgments that declare the unconstitutionality of general norms, the two binding precedents published on August 8, 2025, provide a nuanced interpretation of this limitation:
a) First, the Court confirmed that amparo remains procedurally admissible when challenging the constitutionality of general norms. The restriction in Article 107, Section II, merely limits the remedial scope—not the admissibility—of the proceeding. Therefore, mechanisms such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality remain available as avenues for broader constitutional relief.
b) Second, the Court limited the substantive reach of the prohibition, holding that the term “general norms” under Article 107 refers solely to statutory laws issued by the legislative branch, thereby excluding general administrative acts from the constitutional restriction.
Taken together, both precedents establish a balanced framework for interpreting Article 107, Section II. They preserve the admissibility of amparo actions against general norms and confine the scope of the prohibition to formally enacted laws. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed amparo’s role as a constitutional control mechanism in the face of unconstitutional regulatory provisions.
