On June 9, 2026, a decree amending, supplementing and repealing various provisions of the Federal Law of Administrative Litigation Procedure (the “Decree”) was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation.
According to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the reform, its main objectives are to streamline proceedings before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, strengthen the use of digital tools, and align procedural rules with legislative changes enacted in recent years. Collectively, the amendments impact several core aspects of federal administrative litigation proceedings, including the suspension of challenged administrative acts, the applicable procedural track, procedural deadlines, and the remedies available to the parties. Set forth below are some of the most relevant changes:
1.- Additional Restrictions on the Suspension of Challenged Administrative Acts
One of the most significant amendments expands the circumstances under which a suspension may be denied in federal administrative litigation proceedings, aligning the law with recent amendments to the Amparo Law. In particular, the reform reinforces the inadmissibility of suspension measures when the continuation of the challenged act’s effects may adversely affect the public interest or public policy, especially in connection with activities subject to federal permits, authorizations, or concessions.
This amendment raises the threshold for obtaining interim relief and narrows the scope of immediate protection available against certain governmental actions.
2.- New Grounds for Dismissing Recusal Motions
The reform introduces two (2) new circumstances under which a recusal motion may be declared inadmissible:
a) When there are sufficient grounds to conclude that the motion was filed for the purpose of obstructing or delaying the proceedings.
b) When the motion seeks to prevent a Magistrate from ruling on ancillary matters or issues unrelated to the merits of the dispute.
These changes are intended to discourage the strategic use of recusal motions as delaying tactics and to promote procedural continuity.
3.- Amendments to Summary Proceedings
The Decree expands the circumstances under which a case may be processed through summary proceedings. First, it increases the applicable monetary threshold from fifteen (15) to thirty (30) times the annual Unit of Measurement and Update (Unidad de Medida y Actualización or UMA). It also introduces new rules aimed at ensuring that tax-related cases processed under this procedural track are resolved within a maximum period of six (6) months.
In addition, the reform creates a new basis for summary proceedings involving challenges to final resolutions issued by federal tax authorities regarding tax refunds arising from favorable tax balances or undue payments.
In practical terms, these amendments will allow a greater number of cases to be handled through expedited proceedings, requiring litigants to develop their evidentiary and legal strategies more thoroughly from the early stages of the dispute.
4.- Stricter Procedural Deadlines
The reform introduces several adjustments relating to procedural deadlines. Among the most noteworthy is the establishment of a general five (5)-day period for actions by the Court whenever the law does not provide a specific deadline.
Likewise, maximum deadlines are introduced for both judicial authorities and the parties at various stages of the proceedings, further supporting the reform’s objective of accelerating case resolution.
5.- Strengthening the Principle of Greater Benefit
The reform clarifies that when the lack of jurisdiction of the defendant authority is upheld and there are claims challenging the merits of the dispute, the Court must also analyze those substantive claims and, if found well-grounded, render its decision in accordance with the principle of greater benefit.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable courts to issue judgments providing broader relief to private parties, even in cases where annulment based solely on jurisdictional defects might previously have been considered sufficient.
6.- Changes to the Fiscal Review Appeal
The Decree introduces significant amendments to the fiscal review appeal regulated under Article 63 of the law, expanding the circumstances under which this remedy may be filed. The most relevant changes include:
a) The scope of appealable decisions is broadened, allowing challenges against a greater number of rulings issued during the course of the proceedings and not only those that finally dispose of the case.
b) Appeals may now be filed against judgments declaring nullity based on procedural or formal defects, expanding the previous framework under which authorities were generally required to challenge substantive determinations.
c) The monetary thresholds for admissibility are updated through references to the Unit of Measurement and Update (UMA), requiring that the amount in controversy exceed twenty-seven thousand (27,000) UMAs in effect at the time the relevant ruling or judgment is issued.
d) The reform expressly provides for the admissibility of the appeal against resolutions issued by the National Customs Agency of Mexico (Agencia Nacional de Aduanas de México or ANAM) and its subordinate administrative units in matters falling within their jurisdiction.
The amendments introduced by the Decree represent one of the most significant updates to the Federal Law of Administrative Litigation Procedure in recent years. While the reform seeks to expedite case resolution and enhance procedural efficiency, it also imposes greater demands on litigants with respect to obtaining interim relief, determining the appropriate procedural track, complying with procedural deadlines, and planning litigation strategies.
Accordingly, it will be essential to assess the impact of these amendments on ongoing administrative litigation proceedings as well as on future cases filed after the reform’s entry into force.
The Decree was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 9, 2026 and, as a general rule, entered into force on June 10, 2026, without prejudice to the specific transitional provisions applicable to certain matters.
