I. Introduction and Context
I.1. The Rationale for the Reform and the Political Message
The initiative to reform the Amparo Law, which regulates Articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution, was presented by President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration in September 2025 and has generated one of the most intense constitutional debates in years. The official narrative accompanying the proposal focuses on the need to modernize and make the constitutional justice system more efficient. It argues that the changes seek to accelerate the administration of justice by combating slowness and artificial delays in proceedings.
I.2. Current Legislative Status
- Initiative filed: On September 15, 2025, President Claudia Sheinbaum sent the Senate an initiative to reform the Amparo Law and certain related laws (the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Court, the Federal Tax Code, etc.).
- Approval in the Senate: The Senate approved the reform in general (and in particular) with amendments. Vote: 76 in favor, 39 against. A highly controversial point was the inclusion of a transitional article making the reform retroactive for cases already in progress, which was not in the original presidential proposal.
- Referral to the Chamber of Deputies: After Senate approval, the reform bill was sent to the Chamber of Deputies for review, discussion, and eventual approval.
- Central controversy — constitutionally questionable retroactivity: The President and some legal scholars have stated that the transitional clause seeking to apply the reform to already-initiated cases would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Expectation of changes in the Chamber of Deputies: At this point, the bill approved by the Senate is not final; the Chamber of Deputies has the authority to introduce changes, especially to conflicting provisions such as the retroactivity transitional article.
II. Main Amendments
The bill from the Joint Committees on Justice; Finance and Public Credit; and Legislative Studies of the Senate, regarding the initiative with draft decree submitted by the President of the Republic, proposes to reform and add various provisions of the Amparo Law, the Federal Tax Code, and the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Court. Its general objective is to strengthen, modernize, and harmonize the regulatory framework of amparo proceedings and prevent abusive use of remedies in tax and administrative matters.
Below is a summary of the main points of the reform, indicating the articles amended:
- Legitimate Interest (Amparo Law: Article 5, Section I): A paragraph is added to Section I of Article 5 of the Amparo Law to specify that, in the case of legitimate interest, the challenged rule, act, or omission must cause an individual or collective legal injury that is real and differentiated from that of other persons. The initial requirement that the injury be “current” and the benefit “direct” is eliminated so as not to restrict access to amparo for the protection of collective or imminent rights. This modification seeks to consolidate the case-law elements for defining legitimate interest and to avoid the judicialization of abstract claims.
- Suspension of the Challenged Act (Amparo Law: Articles 128, 129, 135, 166, 168, and others): New grounds for inadmissibility are added to Article 129, Sections XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII, where granting suspension: 1) allows the continuation of operations related to money laundering or obstructs the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF); 2) allows activities or services requiring a federal permit or concession that has been revoked or invalidated to continue; or 3) prevents or obstructs the State’s exercise of powers regarding public debt.
- In criminal matters, the period for a claimant who obtains suspension against acts depriving liberty (Article 166, Section II) to post a guarantee or comply with other procedural obligations is extended to five days.
- Procedural Deadlines (Amparo Law: Article 124 and others): Clear deadlines are established in various articles, including a maximum period for issuing judgments in indirect amparo outside the constitutional hearing. The original proposal of 60 calendar days for issuing a judgment was adjusted by the Committees to ninety calendar days (Article 124). In addition, the reform seeks to dismiss recusal outright (Article 59) if it is shown to have been filed solely for dilatory or obstructive purposes, and establishes a five-day period to notify the admission of the review appeal (Article 82).
- Digital Amparo Proceedings (Amparo Law: Articles 3, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30): A functional legal framework is incorporated to enable truly digital amparo proceedings. The filing of pleadings will be optional for the filing party (electronic or printed), but all authorities participating in the proceeding are required to create a user account on the Federal Judiciary’s Online Services Portal to act and be notified electronically. This seeks to optimize resources, streamline procedural communication, and reduce processing times, especially for notifications.
- Expansion of the Claim (Amparo Law: Article 111): The scope of claim expansion is limited to prevent dilatory practices. It adds that expansion will only be admissible when the claimant becomes aware of acts closely related to those challenged in the initial claim and that were not known before the claim was filed (Article 111).
- Tax and Administrative Harmonization (Federal Tax Code: Article 124; Organic Law of the TFJA: Article 3): Measures are implemented to prevent the alleged dilatory use of defense mechanisms that obstruct the collection of final tax assessments. Article 124 of the Federal Tax Code is amended to declare the revocation appeal inadmissible against acts demanding payment of final tax assessments or against resolutions on requests for the statute of limitations of such assessments. Accordingly, Article 3 of the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Court is amended to exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction lawsuits against resolutions demanding payment of these same final tax assessments or resolving requests regarding their statute of limitations.
- Official Legal Entities Exempt from Guarantees (Amparo Law: Articles 7 and 137): The list of entities exempt from posting the guarantees required by the Amparo Law is expanded. Official legal entities, decentralized agencies, state-owned enterprises, majority state-participation companies, and national credit institutions, among other public funds and trusts, are expressly added because they operate with public resources.
- Material or Legal Impossibility of Compliance and Criminal Liability (Amparo Law: Articles 262, 267, and 269): The original initiative proposed that the responsible or bound authority could demonstrate, with grounds and reasoning, the existence of a legal or material impossibility to comply with the amparo judgment, which, if proven, would not give rise to sanctions or criminal liability. However, the drafting committees decided to remove this proposed addition to Articles 262, 267, and 269, intending that the procedure for compliance with judgments, as well as the procedural sequence for imposing fines and criminal liability, continue as it currently does.
- Fines for Noncompliance (Amparo Law: Articles 192, 193, and 260): The original initiative also proposed amending Article 193 so that the fine for noncompliance would be imposed on the body identified as the responsible authority or bound body, rather than on the individual holding that position. It also proposed amending Article 192 to state that no fine would be imposed if legal or material impossibility were proven. However, both the amendment to Article 193 and the proposal to eliminate the imposition of fines under Article 192, as well as the proposed reforms to Article 260, were removed by the Committees, seeking to keep the procedure for compliance with judgments and the procedural sequence for imposing fines in force as currently applied.
- Challenged Acts Constituting a Crime (Amparo Law: Article 271): Article 271 is amended to specify that, if amparo is granted and the challenged act, in addition to violating human rights and guarantees, contains evidence of an act classified as a crime, the matter will be referred to the corresponding Public Prosecutor’s Office.
III. Criticism of the Reform Bill
In academic and human-rights circles, many critics warn that this reform represents a setback in constitutional protection of citizens against public power. Institutions such as Centro Prodh, Article 19, and others have stated that the proposed restrictions on the use of amparo, especially regarding suspensions and “legitimate interest,” could weaken the essential mechanism of control against abuses of authority.
Another line of criticism concerns the tightening of conditions for suspending challenged acts. The proposal seeks to restrict suspensions in cases such as account freezes by the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), acts related to the financial system, and public debt, among others. In practice, this reduces claimants’ immediate ability to stop harmful effects while the merits are decided. This limitation is seen as a mechanism that in many cases favors the authority by giving it room to execute acts even in the face of constitutional challenges.
Equally controversial is the transitional article added in the Senate to make the reform retroactive for cases already in progress. Although President Sheinbaum has rejected that inclusion as unconstitutional (against Article 14, which prohibits retroactive laws that harm individuals), the mere incorporation of the transitional provision has raised alarms. Legal scholars warn that, if maintained, it could generate legal uncertainty, mass claims, and litigation over the impropriety of imposing new rules on already-initiated proceedings.
Another recurring criticism of the bill is that it promotes a “pro-authority” vision or one biased toward institutional interests. Various articles note that, although the official justification points to combating the “abuse” of amparo by resourceful persons, the reform ends up cutting tools for vulnerable citizens or social defenders and strengthening the authorities’ room for action. In that sense, some critics allege that the legislative process was rushed, with little consultation, driven from the central power rather than from independent diagnoses.
From the taxpayer’s perspective, the main criticisms of the amparo reforms focus on how these modifications limit their defense tools against tax authorities, strengthen the State’s collection power, and create negative impacts on their liquidity and legal certainty.
It will be necessary to monitor possible changes by the reviewing chamber.
This communication is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice.