What's changing and what's not: key points of the 2025 reform to the Amparo Law

On March 13, 2025, the decree amending various provisions of the Amparo Law was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation as part of a broader effort to reconfigure the functioning of the Federal Judicial Branch. These reforms have a considerable impact on both the structure of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), the effects of amparo proceedings, and the way in which binding precedents are generated.

Centralization of functions in the SCJN

One of the most significant aspects of the reform is the elimination of the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Under this amendment, the Court will operate exclusively as a plenary session, concentrating all jurisdictional powers in a single body. This centralization seeks to provide greater coherence to constitutional jurisprudence, although it also poses risks of overcrowding and delays in the resolution of cases.

As a result, several provisions related to the Chambers were repealed, including those that allowed them to generate binding case law. This reform also entails changes to the rules of jurisdiction and the way in which disputes between collegiate courts are resolved, which will now be resolved exclusively by the Plenary Court.

New regulation of the effects of protection

Another point worth highlighting is the amendment to Article 73 of the Amparo Law, which now expressly establishes that judgments declaring the unconstitutionality of general norms will not have general effects; that is, they will benefit only the complaining party. This limits the function of the amparo trial as a mechanism for diffuse constitutional review and reduces its structural impact on the legal system.

While the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation may still declare a rule invalid through unconstitutionality actions, the amparo trial remains limited in this regard.

Reduction of the threshold for mandatory jurisprudence

Another important change is the reform to Article 222 of the Amparo Law, which reduces the threshold required for decisions of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to constitute a binding precedent from eight to six votes. This modification facilitates the generation of binding jurisprudential criteria, although it could also generate debate about the strength of the consensus reached.

Additionally, Article 223 of the Amparo Law is repealed, eliminating the possibility of the Chambers, which no longer exist, issuing binding case law. This consolidates the Plenary Court as the sole precedent-setting body.

Replacement of the CJF by the Judicial Administration Body

In line with the constitutional reform of the Judiciary, the Federal Judiciary Council is being replaced in various provisions by the new Judicial Administration Body, which will assume functions related to oversight, regulation of electronic signatures, and consolidation of files, among others.

This change seeks to strengthen judicial autonomy and reduce potential conflicts of interest between judicial and administrative functions, although its implementation also represents an organizational challenge.

Other relevant changes

• The National Code of Civil and Family Procedures is officially adopted as a supplementary rule for amparo proceedings, harmonizing the procedure with the new national procedural system.
• The law's language has been updated with a gender perspective and inclusive language, which entailed a general adaptation of various articles to use more inclusive and gender-neutral terms.
• Procedural fines have been increased and will now be calculated in Units of Measure (UMAs) to discourage dilatory behavior.

Conclusion

The 2025 reform of the Amparo Law entails a structural, procedural, and substantive transformation of the amparo trial. While it seeks to provide greater coherence and efficiency to the constitutional justice system, it also raises questions about its impact on effective access to justice.

This is especially relevant in cases where the amparo (protective measure) has been used as a tool to challenge regulations or public policies with structural effects, the benefits of which extend beyond the complainant. Its implementation should be closely monitored by litigants, judges, and academics.