Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / byDaniel Majewski del Castillo, Raúl Alonso Flores Hernández and Frida Isabel Velázquez Vargas.
On #ThesisFriday | On November 13, 2026, the Semanario Judicial published 30 new rulings: 13 case law decisions and 17 isolated legal opinions.
We’ve selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the Collegiate Circuit Courts, and the Regional Circuit Plenary Sessions:
Abstracts
Digital registration number: 2032910 / Thesis: P./J. 222/2026 (12th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The grounds for imposing the fine provided for in the Amparo Law for obstructing or delaying proceedings resulting from the filing of a challenge.
When a court, upon dismissing or rejecting a challenge, finds sufficient evidence to indicate a pattern of abuse of procedural rights that interferes with the effective administration of justice—that is, that the challenge was intended to delay or obstruct the proceedings—it may impose a fine as an exceptional measure.
Digital registration number: 2032893 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/14 C (12a.)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
The suspension or restriction of the use of common areas or amenities by a condominium’s governing body does not constitute an act of authority for the purposes of an indirect amparo proceeding.
Under the Amparo Law, private individuals may only be considered responsible authorities when they perform acts equivalent to those of a public authority; for this to occur, there must be a rule that places them in a distinct position, and the exercise of such authority must substantively constitute a public function. Consequently, when restrictions on common areas stem from internal regulations, assembly resolutions, or rules of coexistence, the administrative body acts within a framework of coordination among private individuals; it is not sufficient for the law to regulate its powers, as those powers must originally belong to the State.
Digital registration number: 2032897 / Thesis: PR.CRT. J/4 A (12a.)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
In an indirect amparo proceeding, the initial order is not the appropriate proceeding to determine whether grounds for dismissal exist when a telecommunications concessionaire is identified as the responsible authority.
This is because it is not possible to conduct a comprehensive analysis in the initial order; therefore, when a telecommunications concessionaire is identified as the responsible authority for the implementation of the Guidelines for the Identification of Mobile Phone Lines, that order is not the appropriate procedural step to determine whether or not the petitioner qualifies as the responsible authority.
Digital registration number: 2032895 / Thesis: I.3o.C.2 K (12a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
For the purposes of determining the admissibility of an indirect amparo action, the hearing to examine the judicial confession constitutes the final decision.
The foregoing is based on the fact that, in the case of pretrial proceedings, an indirect amparo is generally admissible only against the decision that brings such proceedings to an end; therefore, in the case of an oral commercial enforcement proceeding, that proceeding concludes and fulfills its purpose upon the completion of the hearing for judicial admission.
Digital registration number: 2032906 / Thesis: I.1o.A.4 A (12a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The decree designating David Alfaro Siqueiros’s work as an artistic monument does not violate the right to property, insofar as it imposes conditions on its exceptional export.
To determine whether a regulation restricts a fundamental right (such as the right to property in light of the national interest in preserving artistic monuments), the proportionality test must be applied under a lenient standard of review. Thus, Article 6 of the challenged Decree passes this test, as it is constitutionally valid, appropriate, necessary, and strictly proportional, since it does not deprive the individual of his or her property nor prohibit him or her from selling or exporting the work, but rather subjects its permanent removal to minimal conditions that guarantee its protection, its public display, and the preservation of the nation’s cultural heritage.
Digital registration number: 2032911 / Thesis: I.3o.C.1 K (12a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Personal service of process in an amparo proceeding on an elderly person who is vulnerable because they cannot read or write is null and void if the necessary accommodations were not made to ensure their understanding.
The failure of the person who signed on behalf of the plaintiff (the attorney) to appear, and the failure to explain the charges in simple, clear, and accessible language to an elderly plaintiff who cannot read or write, renders the notification invalid from the outset; therefore, it is incorrect to calculate the deadline for filing the complaint based on that proceeding and to deem the complaint unfiled due to late filing, since an error by the court cannot impede access to justice.
Digital registration number: 2032916 / Thesis: XIII.2o.C.A.1 K (12a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
During the presentation of expert testimony in an indirect amparo proceeding, the federal judge has the authority to add items to the questionnaire.
In accordance with the provisions of the Amparo Law, the judge not only has the authority to appoint a third-party expert and oversee the procedural aspects of the expert testimony, but is also empowered to add, on his or her own initiative, any necessary items to the questionnaire when he or she identifies deficiencies, in order to obtain the specialized technical information required to properly resolve the matter.
This publication was prepared byDaniel Majewski del Castillo,Raúl Alonso Flores Hernández, and Frida Isabel Velázquez Vargas.
