Reform to the Amparo Law: Opinion approved

Executive Summary:

• On October 14, 2025, the Chamber of Deputies approved the ruling on the reform of the Amparo Law, partially amending the initiative submitted by the Federal Executive on September 15. Although it incorporates certain nuances of precision, it maintains the guiding principle of the original proposal: limiting the protective scope of the amparo trial under the pretext of making it more procedurally effective.

• Although the approved reform incorporates measures aimed at procedural efficiency and the technological modernization of the justice system, several of its adjustments raise concerns about their regressive effect on the effective judicial protection of human rights and on access to justice for vulnerable groups, affected communities, and collectives.

A comparative analysis shows that the final version maintains the restrictive and regressive orientation of the initial draft. The main changes to the Amparo Law are as follows:

• Suspension of the contested act: Serious restrictions are established on suspensions in the case of acts related to permits, authorizations, or concessions issued by federal authorities; the blocking of bank accounts; the collection of tax credits; and acts related to the prevention of money laundering. The possibility of granting suspensions with general effects is eliminated, and their admissibility is restricted in cases of acts of "public interest”. The ruling establishes the judge's obligation to consider the appearance of sound law. This modification restricts judicial discretion, weakening the precautionary function of the amparo. In other words, it retains a view that reduces the immediate protective power of the constitutional judgment, recalling that—as has been observed in most cases— without suspension, there is no protection.

• Legitimate interestOne of the most controversial issues is the redefinition of legitimate interest, which now requires that the benefit derived from the nullity of the challenged act be "certain and not merely hypothetical or eventual." This clarification, while seeking to limit procedural abuses, blurs the flexible nature of legitimate interest, consolidated by the Supreme Court as an intermediate path between legal interest and simple interest. Its literal interpretation could exclude from protection environmental groups or communities that demonstrate indirect but real impacts, representing a material setback in the protection of diffuse rights and environmental justice.

• Protection against collection of tax credits: The admissibility of amparo proceedings against acts of enforcement or collection of tax credits is restricted, establishing that it will only be admissible at the time of publication of the auction notice and establishing the deposit note or a letter of credit as the only guarantee mechanisms.

• Expanding demandRegarding the expansion of the claim, the new text limits its admissibility only to cases where the contested acts were unknown at the time of the initial filing, which limits a procedural tool that allowed for concentrated protection and prevents the dispersion of related litigation.

• Challenges: For their part, recusals will face a more restrictive regime: those that the judge considers dilatory or intended to influence the allocation of jurisdiction over ancillary matters will be dismissed outright. This summary filter, without a substantive examination, could weaken the guarantee of judicial impartiality and render the right to an independent judge meaningless.

• Electronic trialAmong the positive aspects are the mandatory electronic notifications for authorities and parties, as well as the digitalization of procedural stages. These measures promise more agile and transparent justice, provided they are implemented with adequate safeguards for those seeking justice with limited access to digital media.

• Compliance with sentencesFinally, regarding enforcement of judgments, it is established that, before requesting the responsible authorities, the judge must analyze their powers to determine whether they are bound by the judgment. Although this is presented as a technique for clarifying jurisdiction, it could delay enforcement and dilute the direct responsibility of the issuing authority. The exclusion of criminal liability for noncompliance when there is a "legal or material impossibility" reinforces this risk by introducing a poorly defined escape valve.

Therefore, the challenge will be to strike a balance between procedural efficiency and the protection of rights, preventing administrative simplification from resulting in less accessible justice.

The reform will force litigants to rethink their standing and precautionary defense strategies. In strategic, environmental, tax, or administrative litigation, the new evidentiary requirements could modify the viability of suspensions.

At the institutional level, courts must strengthen the motivation behind their decisions and clarify the standards applied, especially when invoking vague legal concepts such as the "public interest."

From a systemic perspective, the reform offers an opportunity to streamline procedures and digitize judicial operations, but it requires a firmer foundation in the constitutional and conventional principles that govern amparo as an instrument of control and guarantee.

In short, the approved bill redefines the amparo trial and anticipates a new framework that could imply a paradigm shift: from an expansive, progressive, and guarantee-based amparo to a more limited, formalistic, and restrictive one, with direct consequences for the protection of fundamental rights.