Reapplying a rule already struck down for you calls for a repetition complaint
Complaint of repetition of the challenged act. It is available, rather than a new amparo, against failure to observe the scope and effects of an amparo judgment that declared article 167 Bis of the Health Supplies Regulation unconstitutional.
Official heading (Spanish): DENUNCIA DE REPETICIÓN DEL ACTO RECLAMADO. PROCEDE CONTRA LA OMISIÓN DE OBSERVAR EL ALCANCE Y LOS EFECTOS DE UNA EJECUTORIA DE AMPARO EN LA QUE SE DECLARÓ LA INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD DEL ARTÍCULO 167 BIS DEL REGLAMENTO DE INSUMOS PARA LA SALUD, Y NO UN NUEVO JUICIO DE AMPARO.
The ruling
Collegiate Circuit Courts disagreed on how to challenge an authority's failure to respect an amparo that declared article 167 Bis of the Health Supplies Regulation unconstitutional. The Regional Plenary Court ruled, in binding precedent (jurisprudencia), that the proper route is a complaint of repetition of the challenged act under articles 199 and 200 of the Amparo Law, not a new indirect amparo.
Our take
The precedent arises in health regulation, but its logic is general: an amparo against a rule protects against present and future applications. If the same authority applies it again, the route is a repetition complaint, not starting over. This matters to regulated companies with amparo wins against regulations or statutes. Choosing the wrong route is costly: a new amparo may be dismissed and time is lost. We recommend keeping a register of rules disapplied in the company's favor and of the authorities bound by each ruling.
What to do
- Keep a register of amparo wins against rules, listing the responsible authorities and each ruling's scope.
- If the disapplied rule is applied again, prepare a repetition complaint rather than a new amparo.
- Tell operating teams which rules should not be accepted as applicable to the company.
Details
- Court
- Regional Plenary Courts
- Type
- Binding precedent (jurisprudencia)
- Identifier
- PR.A.C.CN. J/8 K (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032583
- Published
- September 4, 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.