Suspension in the amparo trial, in certain cases, to obtain it will be necessary to have an amparo trial… against the Amparo Law

On October 16, 2025, the Decree reforming and adding various provisions to the Amparo Law was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation; this was due to the initiative presented by President Sheinbaum to the Congress of the Union.

Among the most relevant reforms is the addition of requirements to obtain the suspension, the fulfillment of which will largely depend on the discretion of the Judge, and the inclusion of a transitional article that allows trials that are already in progress to be subject to these requirements.

Previously, the Amparo Law imposed only two requirements for granting a suspension. The first was that it be requested, and the second was that granting it would not cause harm to the public interest or contravene public order provisions.

Such requirements were even nuanced through jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in which it was determined what is understood by social interest and by public order, in addition to incorporating as an interpretation tool for judges the term of "appearance of good right" understood as that the person who promotes the trial demonstrates to the Judge, only with a preliminary study of the claim, that his claim is not openly unfounded; that is, that there is a certain degree of probability that such person is right.

Now, with the reforms, the terms of those jurisprudence, which, it is emphasized, were previously used by Judges only as a reference and basis for their study, are incorporated into the text of the Law and, consequently, now the process of analysis by the Judges must be expressly stated in the resolutions, justifying the causes, reasons and motives for which the “appearance of good right” was demonstrated and explaining the balancing between that “appearance of good right” and the possible effects on the social interest.

The intention of the above is that, in order to grant the suspension, the Judge verifies and states in his resolutions whether the following requirements are met:

• That the act being challenged exists and that there is certainty of its imminent occurrence or, at least, that there is a reasonable presumption of its existence.

• That there is a principle of grievance; that is, that the Judge at least infers that the execution of the act complained of will affect the person who promoted the lawsuit.

• That no significant harm is caused to the community, nor is society deprived of benefits to which it is entitled.

• Finally, that the preliminary analysis of the claim establishes the "appearance of good right".

Based on these new requirements, it is the responsibility of the individual to demonstrate a much greater number of situations, facts, and legal circumstances, as these grant judges greater discretion. For example, in the case of a closure, one judge might consider that simply requesting the corresponding permit is sufficient to ensure that the suspension does not cause significant harm to the community, since the authority has not yet responded to that request; however, another judge might consider that submitting the request only creates an expectation of a right and, therefore, is insufficient.

To avoid that margin of subjectivity, the standard under which the suspension is requested must be increased, arguing each and every reason why, in the case of the example, the request for said permit proves the four requirements requested by the Amparo Law after the reform.

In principle, the foregoing would apply to amparo proceedings filed after October 17, 2025, the date on which the reforms took effect. However, the Third Transitory Article of the Decree allows the reforms to be applied to proceedings initiated before that date, noting that the Amparo Law is a procedural law and that, according to the doctrine and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, it cannot create vested rights regarding future matters.

Thus, in all amparo proceedings filed after that date, the new terms of the Amparo Law will have to be applied. Therefore, given the well-founded fear that the suspension could now be denied due to the increased requirements, the lawsuit itself could include a specific ground for appeal to challenge the new articles regulating the suspension, seeking to have the previous Amparo Law applied when deciding on the suspension of the effects of the challenged acts. This would only happen if the Judge grants the suspension with respect to the application of the articles of the Amparo Law itself.

Of course, it could be complicated for a judge to suspend the effects of the new Amparo Law to resolve the suspension regarding the act being challenged under the previous law; however, it is a possibility that can be explored given how complicated it will now be to obtain such a precautionary measure.