Appealing a direct amparo judgment served by list does not revive the injunction
Direct amparo judgment issued by a Collegiate Circuit Court. The order to serve it by list reveals the preliminary view that it involved no genuinely constitutional issue and becomes final by operation of law; therefore, merely filing an appeal (revisión) against it does not deprive it of procedural finality or reinstate the suspension of the challenged act.
Official heading (Spanish): SENTENCIA DE AMPARO DIRECTO EMITIDA POR UN TRIBUNAL COLEGIADO DE CIRCUITO. LA ORDEN DE NOTIFICARLA POR LISTA REVELA EL CRITERIO PRELIMINAR DE QUE EN ELLA NO HUBO UNA CUESTIÓN PROPIAMENTE CONSTITUCIONAL Y QUE DEBE CAUSAR EJECUTORIA POR MINISTERIO DE LEY, POR LO QUE LA SOLA INTERPOSICIÓN DEL RECURSO DE REVISIÓN EN SU CONTRA NO LA PRIVA DE FIRMEZA PROCESAL NI PROVOCA QUE LA SUSPENSIÓN DEL ACTO RECLAMADO RECOBRE SU VIGENCIA.
The ruling
A tenant filed a direct amparo against a judgment ordering her to vacate a property. The Collegiate Circuit Court denied relief and ordered service by list. She filed a revisión and, before it was sent to the SCJN, was evicted. She claimed the suspension had been breached. The court held that merely filing the revisión neither strips the judgment of finality nor revives the suspension.
Our take
Service by list is a signal many overlook: the Circuit Court is indicating there was no constitutional issue and that its judgment becomes final by operation of law. Filing a revisión with the SCJN does not buy time. For the winning party, the ruling allows enforcement without waiting for the appeal. For the losing party, it means planning exit or settlement before judgment, not after. The weak spot is that finality rests on a preliminary view; if the SCJN admits the appeal, things could change, but enforcement will already have happened.
What to do
- Check how service was ordered in every direct amparo judgment.
- If served by list, prepare for enforcement or settlement without relying on the suspension.
- Assess whether a revisión is genuinely viable before relying on it to halt enforcement.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- XVI.2o.C.1 K (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032718
- Published
- October 2, 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.