Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and Frida Isabel Velázquez Vargas.
On #ThesisFriday | May 15, 2026, the Judicial Weekly published 26 new rulings: 13 case law decisions and 13 isolated rulings.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the Collegiate Circuit Courts:
Abstracts
Digital record: 2032132 / Thesis: P./J. 80/2026 (12th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
Section 96 of the Law on the Protection and Defense of Financial Services Users does not violate legal certainty, because it sets a maximum period of five years for CONDUSEF to impose sanctions.
The principle of legal certainty does not require specific time limits for each stage of the procedure, but rather mechanisms that prevent arbitrariness and indefinite proceedings. In this case, the five-year statute of limitations for CONDUSEF to impose sanctions ensures legal certainty, as it places a time limit on its authority to impose sanctions and prevents the proceedings from dragging on indefinitely.
Digital registration: 2032128 / Thesis: P./J. 70/2026 (12th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The fine for failure to maintain third-party liability insurance, as provided for in Article 164 of the State of Puebla’s Law on Mobility and Road Safety, is constitutional.
The prohibition on excessive fines set forth in Article 22 of the Constitution requires the State to ensure that penalties are proportionate; therefore, the fine of 20 to 40 UMAs established in the State of Puebla’s Law on Mobility and Road Safety is not excessive, as it allows the authorities to tailor the fine by considering criteria such as the severity of the offense, the offender’s financial situation, and whether it is a repeat offense; furthermore, although the law does not specify whether the UMA should be taken as a daily, monthly, or annual value, this does not undermine legal certainty, since, in accordance with the pro persona principle and the prohibition on excessive fines, it must be interpreted that the penalty is calculated based on the daily value of the UMA, as this is the least restrictive option for the governed.
Digital registration number: 2032126 / Thesis: IV.2o.P.3 P (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The mere assertion that prior communication took place with the complainant is not sufficient to justify deviating from the protocol set forth in Article 15 of the Amparo Law in cases where a lack of communication is alleged and the direct complainant’s signature is missing.
In amparo proceedings filed pursuant to Article 15 of the Amparo Law regarding acts of isolation or those provided for in Article 22 of the Constitution, the mere existence of prior communication between the petitioner and the complainant is not sufficient to dismiss the petition on the grounds of lack of signature, since isolation may persist even with limited or restricted contact; therefore, in the face of ambiguous or apparently contradictory statements, the court must favor access to justice, seek clarifications, and follow the appropriate legal procedure until, where applicable, the complaint is ratified by the complainant.
Digital record: 2032127 / Thesis: VI.3o.A.5 K (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The issue of lack of standing in a direct amparo proceeding depends on the stage of the proceedings at which the petitioner’s standing was recognized, in accordance with Article 11 of the Amparo Law.
The scope of the motion challenging standing in a direct amparo proceeding depends on the stage of the proceedings at which it is filed: if it is raised after the order granting leave to proceed, the review is limited to whether the Collegiate Court correctly determined standing based on the evidence in the original proceedings; but if it is filed before said order, the analysis may directly address the recognition made by the responsible authority and even separate issues related to the petitioner’s representation, especially when there are doubts or changes regarding the petitioner’s legal standing, and in any case, the party must be given notice to remedy irregularities and prove that it had valid representation when filing the complaint.
Digital registration number: 2032138 / Thesis: VI.3o.A.6 K (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Judgments in an accessible and easy-to-read format must be issued when vulnerable individuals or groups are involved, as well as in other significant cases.
Judgments in an accessible and easy-to-read format are no longer limited to people with disabilities; rather, they may be issued in any case involving individuals or groups in vulnerable situations, those with specific social characteristics, or matters of particular importance—such as cases involving children and adolescents, indigenous people, migrants, or people with disabilities—since this type of ruling aims to ensure effective access to justice, understanding of judicial decisions, and the inclusion and equality of all people.
Digital registration number: 2032144 / Thesis: IV.2o.P.1 K (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Article 168 of the Amparo Law should not be applied to require a security deposit for a provisional stay of proceedings when the complaint indicates that the petitioners are living in poverty, are marginalized, or are socially disadvantaged.
Although Article 168 of the Amparo Law provides that a security deposit must be posted in order to grant a stay of proceedings in cases involving personal liberty within criminal proceedings, this requirement cannot be applied when it prevents real and effective access to the amparo proceeding, especially in the case of individuals in a situation of economic vulnerability, as this would violate the right of access to justice recognized in the Constitution and in the American Convention on Human Rights.
Prepared by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and Frida Isabel Velázquez Vargas.
