Introduction
In September 2025, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum proposed a reform to the Amparo Law, arguing it would modernize and improve the efficiency of the judicial system. However, its implications extend beyond technical aspects, potentially affecting investment, legal certainty, and the business environment. The initiative proposes amendments to the Amparo Law, articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution, the Federal Fiscal Code, and the Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Court. It redefines legitimate interest, limits provisional suspensions, and restricts the collective scope of rulings.
Historical Context and Importance of Amparo
The amparo lawsuit has historically been a crucial tool for citizens and businesses to defend themselves against administrative decisions that violate fundamental rights. In the business realm, it has allowed for challenging arbitrary closures, disproportionate tax measures, unfounded regulatory acts, and decisions affecting property or contract compliance. Weakening it represents not only a constitutional setback but also deteriorates investment conditions, especially in a global context where competition to attract capital is fierce.
Redefining Legitimate Interest
One of the most delicate aspects of the proposal is the redefinition of legitimate interest. Since 1994, the Supreme Court had consolidated this concept as a tool for communities, civil organizations, and groups to promote amparos in defense of public interest causes—such as the environment, indigenous rights, or cultural heritage—even without proving direct personal harm. This evolution gave the amparo a transformative character, expanding its scope beyond individual matters.
The current proposal breaks with this progress by requiring that the injury be direct, personal, distinct, and benefit the promoter concretely. In practice, this implies a return to hyperindividualistic amparo, where only those who can prove personal harm will have access to constitutional justice. The consequences are clear: entire communities, NGOs, and actors who have used amparo as a strategic defense mechanism will be excluded, unable to litigate matters affecting the collectivity, like deforestation in the Maya forest or water resource impacts.
Restrictions on Provisional Suspensions
Another concern is the restriction on suspending acts of authority, a measure that has historically preserved the subject matter of the lawsuit and prevented irreparable harm while resolving the dispute. The new scheme makes suspension an exception subject to vague requirements and criteria, such as assessing harm to the public or collective interest. This opens a wide margin for judicial discretion to deny suspensions, leaving individuals and businesses vulnerable to immediate administrative decisions.
The reform further establishes explicitly that suspension will not be granted if it may affect the “interest of the State.” This methodological change is significant because it equates state interest with social interest, giving it predominant weight over individual rights. In practice, this would allow justifying the denial of suspensions in controversial administrative acts—like permit revocations, closures, or broad-scope regulatory measures—under the argument that they protect state interests, even if they are arbitrary.
The result would be a substantial restriction on effective access to judicial defense for citizens and businesses, weakening the Amparo to a limited and ineffective mechanism.
Impact on the Economy
These modifications to legitimate interest and suspension not only strengthen the authority’s position but also weaken individuals’ defense mechanisms, reducing Amparo to a limited and ineffective tool. This represents a substantial setback that erodes the very nature of Amparo as a pillar of the rule of law and a guarantee of balance between citizens and the state.
The weakening of these figures directly impacts the economy by reducing legal defense capacity, exposing businesses to greater regulatory and operational risks. A company losing its concession or operation permit cannot effectively amparo to avoid immediate losses, making multimillion-dollar projects vulnerable to discretionary administrative decisions.
Internationally, there are compelling examples of how a weakened judicial system and limited access to defense mechanisms directly affect investment climates. Between 2015 and 2020, Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) government pushed reforms allowing political control over judges’ appointments and limiting the Constitutional Tribunal’s competencies. These measures prompted an immediate response from the European Union, activating Article 7 of the Treaty due to a systemic threat to the rule of law. Multinational corporations, like those documented by the U.S. Department of State in 2023, froze expansion plans due to the weak judicial system. Consequently, foreign direct investment (FDI) flows dropped by more than 20% between 2016 and 2019. Insecurity generated by the lack of an independent judiciary increased compliance and litigation costs, affecting the country’s competitiveness.
In Venezuela, between 2001 and 2015, the progressive elimination of judicial guarantees, combined with executive power concentration and subordination of the Judiciary, led to significant capital flight. Companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips left the country following prolonged litigation and expropriations without effective defense mechanisms. FDI flows plummeted from $4.5 billion in 2001 to $317 million in 2017. The lack of institutional checks transformed Venezuela into a paradigmatic case of how legal insecurity can discourage investment, even in strategic sectors like energy and mining.
Turkey’s case is particularly emblematic. After the 2016 attempted coup, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government implemented radical judicial system reforms under the guise of national stability protection. Measures included mass judge dismissals, subordination of the Judges and Prosecutors Council to the Executive, and expanded powers to restrict civil liberties via decrees. This institutional hardening had direct consequences on the business climate, further eroding judicial independence and creating a high-uncertainty environment for both domestic and foreign companies. According to Turkish Central Bank data and OECD analyses, FDI flows fell from $13.7 billion in 2015 to less than $5 billion in 2020.
In Mexico, the Amparo Law reform comes amidst the governing coalition’s legislative majority and political power concentration. While the reform includes technological advances like process digitization and expedited timelines, these benefits might be overshadowed by the weakening of procedural guarantees. Business organizations and lawyers’ colleges analyze the initiative concerning its potential to reduce defense capacity against fiscal and administrative acts, creating an asymmetrical process between the state and individuals.
In a global context where investors prioritize robust regulatory frameworks, any signal of reduced legal certainty increases risk premiums, raises financing costs, and reduces investment.
The message received by domestic and foreign capital in Mexico could be worrying: the rules of the game might change with less judicial defense margin. This scenario increases perceived risk, raises financing costs, and may moderate the pace of foreign direct investment arrival. While large corporations have international arbitration as an alternative when appropriate, small and medium-sized enterprises would have fewer protection tools, creating a more challenging business environment regarding certainty and fairness.
The upcoming public hearings on September 29-30 in the Senate must prioritize defending the Amparo lawsuit as a pillar of the rule of law and a guarantee of legal certainty for citizens and businesses. Mexico cannot afford to weaken the only instrument protecting individuals from arbitrary power.
*The author is the Director of Inteligencia Más and a master’s degree holder in Government and Public Policy at the Universidad Panamericana.
