Overview
- Justice Yasmín Esquivel Mossa’s project sought to require concrete proof of “legitimate interest,” such as using or living in the affected area, before associations could file amparos.
- The Court declined to find a contradiction of criteria among lower courts, so it did not address the substance of the proposed restrictive interpretation.
- Court president Hugo Aguilar Ortiz and justices Giovanni Figueroa Mejía and Arístides Guerrero García said the matter falls to the Regional Circuit Plenums.
- Reports differed on the vote count, with one outlet citing a 7–2 dismissal and another noting six votes for the project but seven votes finding no contradiction.
- Environmental groups, including Greenpeace, warned the proposal would narrow access to justice, and for now associations may continue filing amparos without showing direct harm.