Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
December 5. 2022.	Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 165/2020	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Right to vote; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly; vertical separation of powers	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico held that the authorization of local congresses to reduce the electoral campaign period up to 30 days during the public health emergency was unconstitutional.	Several political parties initiated a constitutional review process against an electoral reform allowing for local congresses to limit the electoral campaign period in their territory up to 30 days. The Supreme Court of Justice considered, that this authorization meant an unconstitutional limitation of right to vote; freedom of expression and freedom of assembly; while also undermined the constitutional framework of separation of powers, therefore, it was nullified as unconstitutional.	https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5673282&fecha=05/12/2022#gsc.tab=0		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-supreme-court-nation-accion-de-inconstitucionalidad-1652020-2022-12-05
november 26. 2021.	No. 25/2021	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Vaccination; access to justice; access to information	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico suspended a resolution of the National Authority for Transparency requiring from governmental authorities to reveal information from the status and administration of Covid-19 vaccines.	The Government of Mexico as the claimants challenged a resolution of the National Institute for Transparency requiring from governmental authorities to disclose information from the status and administration of Covid-19 vaccines. The governmental authorities argued that this was a matter of national security concern, therefore the disclosure of this information was rejected. The Supreme Court of Justice held that the reference on national security was reasonable, therefore, the resolution of the National Institute for Transparency was suspended, and further investigations were ordered regarding the national security aspect before issuing the final decision.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-supreme-court-justice-no-252021-2021-11-26
August 10. 2021.	No. 31/2020.	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Right to assembly	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico declared the unconstitutionality of certain measures imposing special tax on private individuals holding private gatherings in Zacateca.	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico heard a case challenging certain measures of the authorities of Zaccateca. The impugned measures imposed a special tax on private individuals who organises private gatherings. The authorities justified the establishment of this contribution with the extraordinary virus concerns. The Supreme Court of Justice considered that the new tax constituted an arbitrary barrier on private gatherings, therefore, the relevant unconstitutional regulations were abrogated. The only exception was the tax on such gatherings, which entailed the closure of public streets, this measure was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice as a reasonable interference.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-national-supreme-court-justice-no-312020-2021-08-10
March 17. 2021.	No. 136/2020.	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Separation of powers	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico rejected to suspend certain federal regulations transferring certain resources from the state governments to the Federal Government due to the public health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.	The Federal Government of Mexico decided to transfer several resources from state governments to the federal level to tackle the economic challenges triggered by the global pandemic. One of the state governments contested this decision before the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected the claim. The Supreme Court of Justice considered that the measure was a proportionate interference, which served a legitimate purpose and did not affect the constitutional rights of the people. Therefore, the claim for suspending the impugned regulations was rejected.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-supreme-court-justice-second-chamber-no-1362020-2021-03-17
February 17. 2021.	Contradicción de Tesis 250/2020.	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Right to life	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico held that the judgment of labor courts to suspend a decision of the Mexican Institute of Social Security to deny medical leaves and the judgment of the administrative court to uphold its validity were not in conflict, the factual differences resulted in various judgments.	During March 2023. a federal agreement was concluded in Mexico from the protection of medical workers during the public health emergency. Although tthe conclusion of this agreement, the Mexican Institute of Social Security denied to provide any medical leave, and ordered the whole staff to return to work. Some doctors and nurses challenged this resolution before labor- and administrative courts through an amparo action, and this entailed a controversial situation. The labor court suspended the application of this resolution while the administrative court confirmed its validity. The labor- and administrative courts submitted complaints of contradiction, while The Supreme Court of Justice declared, that it is not in a position to provide an unitary standard for such cases, factual differences resulted in various judgments.	https://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ConsultaTematica/PaginasPub/DetallePub.aspx?AsuntoID=276933		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-supreme-court-justice-contradiccion-de-tesis-2502020-2021-02-17
December 9. 2020	Recurso de Reclamación 108/2020-CA	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Separation of powers	The Supreme Court of Justice rejected the claim of a state government to block certain federal regulations which ordered the reallocation of state resources in the light of the public health emergency.	A state government in Mexico challenged by a constitutional claim certain federal regulations resulted in the reallocation of state resources in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the decisions of the lower courts and held that the request for suspension was not founded, instead of a constitutional claim for suspension, the state government should look for fiscal compensation for its alleged losses before the judiciary.	https://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ConsultaTematica/PaginasPub/DetallePub.aspx?AsuntoID=275182		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-supreme-court-justice-recurso-de-reclamacion-1082020-ca-2020-12-09
September 8. 2020.	No. 136/2020.	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Rights of indigenous people	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico held that the neglect of required consultation with indigenous and Afro-Mexican people during the adoption of certain regulations affecting their constitutional rights on the ground of the public health emergency was unconstitutional.	The State of Guerrero enacted a decree during the public health emergency which also amended the law on electoral procedures in Guerrero. The drafting process was started in 2018, so a long time before the public health emergency. During the enactment process, the required consultation was neglected with the indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities in spite of the fact that the adopted provisions regulated the way of nominating their candidates in the elections. The members of these communities challenged the relevant provisions of the decree before the Supreme Court of Justice, which accepted the claims. The Supreme Court of Justice highlighted that tackling the public health challenges should not prevail over the requirement of consulting with indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities before the enactment of certain regulations affecting their constitutional rights, therefore, the impugned provisions were unconstitutional.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-mexicos-supreme-court-no-1362020-2020-09-08
July 9. 2020.	Constitutional Controversy 92/2020.	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Freedom of movement; freedom of assembly; separation of powers	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico held, that a municipal decree from the reopening of a city in the state of Morelos violated the federal and state competences during the public health emergency, however, due to the lower intensity of the pandemic, the circumstances were changed, the margin of movement of municipalities were extended, therefore, although the declaration of unconstitutionality at the moment of enacting the decree, the still effective provisions of the decree were not nullified.	The State of Morelos challenged a decree of a municipality from Morelos limiting freedom of movement and right to assembly overbroadly, and provide too extensive public health competences for the major of the city. The municipality rejected the arguments of the State. The Supreme Court of Justice stated, that the municipal decree was later partially suspended, however, its certain provisions were still applicable. Moreover, at the moment of adopting the decree, a redlight system was operated in Morelos, which meant, that the municipalities had very narrow competences to defer from federal and state regulations. However, later the applicable light regime was amended to orange from red in Morelos, which meant, that the competences of municipalities were extended again, and in this new situation, the decree, or its still applicable provisions might be constitutional. So at the time of the adoption, the decree was clearly unconstitutional, but the unconstitutionality is not valid anymore due to the changing circumstances, and the judgment of the Court shall not have retroactive effect. As a consequence, the original unconstitutionality of the decree was confirmed, but owing to the changing circumstances, its still applicable provisions were not nullified.	https://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ConsultaTematica/PaginasPub/DetallePub.aspx?AsuntoID=272372		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/mexico-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-controversy-922020-2020-07-09
July 2. 2020.	Controversia Constitucional 93/2020.	Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico	Right to free enterprise	The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico declared the invalidity of a municipal decree in the state of Morelos which was not in force at the moment of the constitutional review.	A municipality adopted a decree in the State of Morelos from economic reopening after the Covid-19 pandemic, and this was challenged by the Government of Morelos alleging the violation of applicable federal and state regulations. The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the invalidity of the act, however, due to its abrogation by the municipality before the constitutional review mechanism, the claim was dismissed despite the invalidity of the challenged act.	https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/mexico-supreme-court-justice-nation-2-july-2020.pdf