- On February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (“SCJN”) published jurisprudence 1a./J. 2/2025 (11a.) in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation, establishing that it is possible to link an authority not designated as responsible for compliance with the definitive suspension in an indirect amparo trial.
- According to the SCJN, as long as the linked authority is empowered to comply with the precautionary measure, this link may be applied in terms of articles 158 and 197 of the Amparo Law, the latter in an analogous manner.
The First Chamber of the SCJN resolved the contradiction of criteria 203/024 originating from divergent positions on the possibility of linking authorities other than those indicated as responsible to comply with the definitive suspension in an indirect amparo trial. While the Second Collegiate Court in Criminal and Administrative Matters of the Seventeenth Circuit (Central-North Region), when resolving complaint 9/2023, held that such linking was possible based on articles 147 and 158 of the Amparo Law, the Seventh Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the First Circuit (Central-South Region), when resolving complaint 281/2022, considered the opposite, arguing that it is only viable for compliance with the protective ruling in accordance with articles 192 and 197 of the same law.[1]
The criterion adopted by the SCJN allows that, in cases where the precautionary measure requires it, any authority that has the competence to comply with the suspension can be bound, even if it was not indicated as responsible in the amparo trial. This interpretation seeks to guarantee the effectiveness of the precautionary measures and avoid affecting the legal sphere of individuals while the merits of the matter are resolved.
The justification lies in the power granted to the courts of amparo by article 158 of the Amparo Law, which allows them to take the necessary measures to comply with the suspension. In addition, article 197 was applied in an analogous manner, since it shares the objective of ensuring the full execution of judicial resolutions, both in the judgment granting amparo and in the one granting the suspension of the challenged act.
In its resolution, the SCJN also highlighted that Article 17, paragraph XNUMX, of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, establishes that federal and local laws must guarantee the full execution of court decisions, which justifies the involvement of any authority related to compliance with the precautionary measure.
In practice, this will allow those who file indirect amparo proceedings to have greater procedural flexibility to achieve effective compliance with definitive suspensions, even when the authority directly responsible cannot or does not want to comply with the measure. In addition, we consider that this criterion can be used to argue in favor of the connection of related authorities, expanding the possibilities of success in defense strategies. This publication is of special interest to those involved in complex litigation or where there are multiple authorities involved, since it facilitates the effective protection of human rights and guarantees more effective judicial protection.
In other words, this new jurisprudential criterion will have a significant and very positive impact on the practice of indirect protection, reinforcing the procedural tools to ensure compliance with definitive suspensions and effectively protecting the rights recognized by our Political Constitution.
[1] https://sjfsemanal.scjn.gob.mx/detalle/tesis/2029940
