Article 129 is no automatic bar to suspension: judges must weigh the case
Provisional suspension in indirect amparo. For purposes of its availability, the list in article 129 of the Amparo Law must not be read as an automatic limit; judges must, case by case, weigh the absence of harm to the public interest and public order against the potential harm to the complainant.
Official heading (Spanish): SUSPENSIÓN PROVISIONAL EN AMPARO INDIRECTO. PARA EFECTOS DE SU PROCEDENCIA, EL CATÁLOGO PREVISTO EN EL ARTÍCULO 129 DE LA LEY DE AMPARO NO DEBE ENTENDERSE COMO LÍMITE AUTOMÁTICO, SINO QUE, CASO POR CASO, LAS PERSONAS JUZGADORAS DEBEN REALIZAR UNA PONDERACIÓN ENTRE LA NO AFECTACIÓN DEL INTERÉS SOCIAL Y EL ORDEN PÚBLICO CON LOS POTENCIALES PERJUICIOS QUE PUEDA RESENTIR LA PERSONA QUEJOSA.
The ruling
A company challenged the shutdown of an activity listed in article 129, section I, of the Amparo Law and obtained an interim suspension because it operated under a permit. The authority argued on appeal that the article bars the measure. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that the list is not an automatic limit and the case must be weighed individually.
Our take
This ruling coexists with others that apply article 129 strictly, such as the one on UIF blocked-persons lists. The tension is clear and will probably end in a conflict-of-rulings proceeding. Meanwhile, the practical strategy is not merely to ask for the suspension but to show in the complaint why the specific case does not compromise the interest the rule protects: permits, lawful activity, regulatory compliance and the harm a shutdown would cause. In our experience, judges weigh better when the evidence arrives at the outset.
What to do
- Attach permits, licenses and evidence of regulatory compliance to the complaint.
- Quantify the harm a shutdown would cause to support the balancing test.
- Cite this ruling when the authority argues article 129 is an automatic bar.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- I.11o.A.3 K (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032507
- Published
- August 14, 2026
- Area
- Amparo and constitutional
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.