Judges must rule on a stay even if another court should hear the case by assignment
Provisional suspension in jurisdiction matters. The District Judge must rule on granting it even if, by relatedness, another court could hear the case, because the rule in article 48, first paragraph, of the Amparo Law does not apply to mere factual or administrative matters unrelated to jurisdiction.
Official heading (Spanish): SUSPENSIÓN PROVISIONAL TRATÁNDOSE DE COMPETENCIA. EL JUEZ DE DISTRITO DEBE PROVEER SOBRE SU CONCESIÓN, AUNQUE POR CUESTIÓN DE RELACIÓN LE PUDIERA CORRESPONDER EL CONOCIMIENTO DEL ASUNTO A OTRO JUZGADO, POR SER INAPLICABLE LA REGLA PREVISTA EN EL PRIMER PÁRRAFO DEL ARTÍCULO 48 DE LA LEY DE AMPARO, AL TRATARSE DE SIMPLES SITUACIONES DE HECHO O DE ORDEN ADMINISTRATIVO AJENAS AL TEMA JURISDICCIONAL.
The ruling
A District Court, noting that another court handled a related matter, transferred the amparo cases without ruling on admission or a stay. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that the rule in article 48 of the Amparo Law applies only to jurisdiction by level, territory or subject matter; case assignment is administrative, so the judge must rule on the provisional stay.
Our take
In urgent amparo cases, days without a stay can cost more than the case itself. This closes a gap: a judge cannot leave the stay pending while deciding which court should hear the case by assignment. For companies with several related amparo cases, this matters because relatedness rules are common. Our recommendation: if the court defers or transfers without ruling on interim relief, file a complaint appeal immediately, citing this precedent along with SCJN binding precedents 2a./J. 115/2011 and 2a./J. 28/2021.
What to do
- Disclose related prior amparo cases in the complaint to avoid orders that delay the stay.
- If the court transfers by assignment without ruling on the stay, file a complaint appeal immediately.
- Cite this precedent and binding precedents 2a./J. 115/2011 and 2a./J. 28/2021 in the appeal.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- IV.2o.A.1 K (11a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032610
- Published
- September 4, 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.