Amparo against the 'unchallengeable reform' amendment cannot be dismissed outright
Inadmissibility of indirect amparo. It is not manifest and unquestionable when the amendment decree on the unchallengeability of additions or amendments to the Federal Constitution is challenged for violations of the legislative procedure; therefore, the complaint may not be dismissed outright.
Official heading (Spanish): IMPROCEDENCIA DEL AMPARO INDIRECTO. NO SE ACTUALIZA DE FORMA MANIFIESTA E INDUDABLE CUANDO SE RECLAMA EL DECRETO DE REFORMA EN MATERIA DE INIMPUGNABILIDAD DE LAS ADICIONES O REFORMAS A LA CONSTITUCIÓN FEDERAL POR VIOLACIONES AL PROCEDIMIENTO LEGISLATIVO, POR LO QUE NO PROCEDE DESECHAR DE PLANO LA DEMANDA.
The ruling
Two Collegiate Circuit Courts disagreed on whether an amparo against the decree published on October 31, 2024, which makes constitutional amendments unchallengeable, should be dismissed at the outset. The Regional Plenary Court held that when the claim targets defects in the legislative procedure, no manifest and unquestionable ground for inadmissibility exists, so the complaint must be admitted.
Our take
The ruling separates two questions: the substance of a constitutional amendment, which remains beyond challenge, and the way it was passed. On the second, the door stays ajar. This does not mean the amparo will succeed; it means the judge cannot shut it down in the opening order and must review it on a full record. In our view, the practical value is procedural: the complaint must rest on concrete defects in the legislative process, not on disagreement with the content. Mixing both lines of argument invites the court to rely on the substantive part to dismiss.
What to do
- Confine the complaint to specific legislative-procedure defects, supported by congressional records.
- Keep any argument about the amendment's substance clearly separate so it does not undermine admissibility.
- If the complaint is dismissed outright, appeal and cite this Regional Plenary Court binding precedent.
Details
- Court
- Regional Plenary Courts
- Type
- Binding precedent (jurisprudencia)
- Identifier
- PR.A.C.CN. J/37 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032054
- Published
- April 24, 2026
- Area
- Amparo and constitutional
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.