Reform to the Amparo Law, Federal Fiscal Code and Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal

On October 16, 2025, the Office of the President published in the evening edition of the Federal Official Gazette ("DOF") the "Decree amending and adding various provisions to the Amparo Law, which regulates Articles 103 and 107 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, the Federal Fiscal Code, and the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal" ("Reform"). This Reform introduces substantial changes to the amparo proceeding regarding standing, rules for granting suspensions, the use of digital means for processing, deadlines for issuing rulings, and specific restrictions on amparo in tax matters.

Background and purpose of the reform

On September 17, 2025, the President of Mexico submitted a bill to amend several provisions to the Amparo Law, the Federal Fiscal Code, and the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal, aiming to implement several modifications to create a more agile and straightforward process that fulfills its social character by being more accessible to the population.

Yet this Reform is subject to debate because, while some changes seek to expedite the procedure and establish faster resolution deadlines, others will make access to amparo more difficult and limit its effectiveness as a means of constitutional protection.

Historically, the amparo proceeding has served as the means to protect fundamental and human rights. Through this action, individuals – both natural and legal persons – can challenge acts, omissions, and general rules from any authority that infringe their rights before approaching the Federal Judiciary. The Congress and Courts have traditionally interpreted amparo broadly, under the principles of progressivity and the fundamental right to effective remedies.

According to the initiative proposed by the president, this reform seeks to address abuses that have occurred in the processing of amparo proceedings. Still, the Reform creates barriers to filing amparo lawsuits and limits its efficiency as a mechanism of constitutional control, especially for challenging acts in regulated sectors, general rules, and tax matters.

To fully understand the impact of the Reform, the same must be analyzed together with the 2024 constitutional reform of the Federal Judiciary, the 2025 amendment to the Amparo Law (more information here), and the proposed amendment to the Federal Fiscal Code currently under review in Congress.

The most relevant changes introduced by the Reform are:

Legitimate interest

The Reform amends the concept of legitimate interest in Article 5 of the Amparo Law, requiring that the rule, act, or omission cause the complainant a real legal injury, differentiated from the position of any other third party, so that a favorable judgment produces a certain, not merely hypothetical or eventual, benefit.

Before the Reform, jurisprudence required that the complainant have a differentiated position regarding the harm caused by the authority's act. Now, the requirement for a real legal injury and a certain benefit brings the concept closer to legal interest, thus narrowing its scope of application.

Suspension of challenged acts

The Reform modifies the requirements in Article 128 of the Amparo Law for granting suspensions. The Reform states that the court must conduct a reasoned analysis of the "appearance of good right" (i.e., the likelihood that the complainant will prevail on the merits) and the social interest to verify the following requirements:

• The challenged act exists, its imminent execution is certain, or there is a reasonable presumption of its existence.
• The complainant must demonstrate, even indicatively, an interest in obtaining the suspension; that is, show that execution of the act will affect them.
• When weighing the effects of the suspension against social interest and public order, the district judge must ensure that granting the suspension does not cause significant harm to the community or deprive society of benefits to which it is ordinarily entitled.
• The preliminary analysis of the arguments must show the appearance of good right, meaning a reasonable presumption that the complainant may obtain a favorable ruling.

These changes are significant compared to the previous text, which only required the complainant to request suspension and that such suspension does not affect public order or social interest. Previously, the appearance of good right served as a tool for the district judge to weigh the need for suspension against impacts on public interest, not as a requirement to demonstrate the plausibility of a favorable judgment.

The Reform also amends Article 129 of the Amparo Law and introduces new scenarios in which suspension is not available, considering that in these cases, granting suspension would harm the social interest or contravene public order if, through suspension:

• Acts, operations, or services with illicit proceeds or related unlawful conduct that harm the financial system are permitted.

  In these cases, suspension may only be granted to safeguard resources necessary for payment of wages, alimony, or to ensure the subsistence of the account holder and payment of tax or mortgage credits related to their own home. Provisional suspension is not available in this scenario, and to obtain definitive suspension, the individual must prove the lawful origin of the accounts subject to suspension.

• The authority is prevented from requesting and obtaining financial information for the prevention and detection of operations with illicit proceeds and related unlawful conduct.
• Activities or services requiring permits, concessions, or authorization from a federal authority are permitted when the necessary license is lacking.
• The exercise of the State's powers regarding public debt is impeded or obstructed.

In line with the constitutional reform to the Federal Judiciary of 2024, a final paragraph was added to Article 148 of the Amparo Law to clarify that, in amparo proceedings challenging the constitutionality of general rules, suspension with general effects is not available.

Expansion of the Amparo complaint

The Reform amends Article 111, section II of the Amparo Law to limit the grounds for expanding the amparo complaint to those expressly provided by law.

Before the Reform, the Amparo Law allowed expansion against acts of authority closely related to those challenged in the initial complaint. The Reform adds the requirement that the acts subject to expansion must not have been known to the complainant before filing the complaint.

Amendments to legal remedies in tax matters

In tax matters, the Reform introduces a new limitation on the admissibility of indirect amparo. The Reform amends Article 107 of the Amparo Law to provide that amparo is only available up to the time of publication of the auction notice in cases of (i) tax credits that, having been determined and challenged, have become final, and (ii) requests for prescription of final tax credits.

To suspend the execution of tax credits, the Reform maintains the requirement that the complainant must guarantee the tax credit through means permitted by the Federal Fiscal Code. But in amparo proceedings against the auction notice mentioned above, only a deposit certificate or letter of credit will be accepted as a guarantee.

The Reform also establishes the inadmissibility of the administrative appeal provided in the Federal Fiscal Code and the nullity claim under the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal against the acts described in (i) and (ii) above. In the case of the administrative appeal, it also includes inadmissibility against acts that the taxpayer claims to be unaware of.

Amendments to improve resolution times in Amparo proceedings

To make proceedings and notifications in amparo more efficient and expeditious, the Reform includes the following changes:

• Use of Digital Means and Notification Rules. The Reform amends Article 3 of the Amparo Law regarding online amparo proceedings, incorporating rules and provisions established by the Supreme Court and – the now extinct – Federal Judiciary Council.

  The Reform clarifies that individuals are not required to file submissions online and may continue to do so physically. However, it requires authorities participating in amparo proceedings to have an active profile in the Online Services Portal or interconnection agreements with the Judicial Administration Body or the Supreme Court to participate in the proceeding.

  Article 25 of the Amparo Law specifies that notifications to the head of the Federal Executive or their representatives must be made electronically. Similarly, Articles 26 and 30 provide that authorities may be summoned to proceedings by official letter only and exceptionally if they do not have a user account in the Online Services Portal or an interconnection agreement.

  Finally, Article 27 adds that notifications to any person with a user account in the Online Services Portal will be made electronically.

• Notification Powers. The Reform amends Article 28, section II of the Amparo Law to allow a District Court to conduct notifications in urgent cases outside its territorial jurisdiction but within a metropolitan area, and limits notifications in the process to those provided by law.
• Limitation on Recusal Requests. The Reform establishes grounds to summarily dismiss recusal motions against judges or magistrates when intended to hinder or delay proceedings. In the case of recusal of Magistrates or Justices, such motions must concern impediments regarding the merits and must be filed before the matter is scheduled for resolution.
• Deadlines. The Reform introduces fixed deadlines for:
  • Notifying the admission of review appeals or direct amparo within no more than five days.
  • Offering evidence in the possession of authorities or third parties may only be done within the five business days before the first constitutional hearing unless the facts were not previously known to the parties.
  • Issuing a judgment within no more than 90 calendar days from the constitutional hearing.
  • Judgments issued by Collegiate Tribunals may be published ten days after the session in which the matter was discussed, even if the dissenting Magistrate has not yet issued their separate opinion.

Exemption from posting bonds for official legal entities

Articles 7 and 137 of the Amparo Law provide that official legal entities forming part of the Federal, State, and Municipal Public Administration, funds, trusts, or similar entities, as well as decentralized agencies, state-owned enterprises, majority state-owned companies, national credit institutions, auxiliary credit organizations, national insurance, and bonding institutions are exempt from posting bonds – including those related to the suspension of challenged acts.

Before the Reform, there were conflicting criteria regarding which official legal entities had to post bonds, limiting the exemption to the centralized public administration, while other official entities, such as majority state-owned companies or state-owned trusts were required to post bonds.

Transitory provisions

The amendments to the Amparo Law took effect on October 17, 2025, and the changes to procedures apply even to ongoing cases. Article Third Transitory of the Reform provides that procedural stages not yet initiated or that have not generated acquired rights will be subject to the new provisions, without the Reform affecting stages that have been concluded.

This transitional provision creates uncertainty in ongoing proceedings, as District Judges and Collegiate Tribunals will need to determine in which cases the current or previous regime applies. The article is unclear in its practical application, since some judicial decisions are not made in a single stage; for example, the analysis of the admissibility of a case is conducted preliminarily when the courts receive an amparo complaint – at this stage, courts may only dismiss manifestly inadmissible complaints – but the thorough analysis of admissibility occurs at the constitutional hearing.

Final comments

The changes that the Reform to the Amparo Law may generate in ongoing or future cases must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine the best mitigation and defense strategy. It is also important to monitor related initiatives regarding bonds in judicial proceedings, which aim to introduce further amendments and limitations to remedies against acts of authority.

Juan Pablo Espinosa and Jose Olvera Ortega (White & Case, Trainee lawyers, Mexico) contributed to the development of this publication.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2025 White & Case LLP}