In Constitutional Matters
The Plenary of the Supreme Court (“SCJN“) determined that the Collegiate Circuit Courts and other jurisdictional bodies are obliged to observe the criteria issued by it, regardless of whether they believe it was improperly compiled.
This is because precedents cannot lose their binding nature except by a contrary resolution or replacement according to the rules provided for such purposes.
Furthermore, it also determined that, against incidental resolutions that revoke the suspension granted ex officio in amparo, the remedy of complaint is appropriate, even if the Amparo Law does not specify the applicability of said remedy in that specific case.
In addition, the plenary ruled that when the amparo court grants a hearing to the plaintiff regarding the ex officio warning of a ground of inadmissibility, it is appropriate that the plaintiff, when presenting such hearing, assert the unconstitutionality of the legal precept on which the ground of inadmissibility is based.
“Digital Record: 2027495
Instance: Plenary
Eleventh Era
Subject(s): Common
Thesis: P./J. 6/2023 (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation.
Type: Jurisprudence
JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE NATION. COLLEGIATE CIRCUIT COURTS AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL BODIES SUBJECT TO IT CANNOT DISREGARD IT, EVEN IF THEY BELIEVE IT WAS IMPROPERLY COMPILED AND, THEREFORE, DEVIATE FROM ITS APPLICATION.”
“Digital Record: 2027502
Instance: Plenary
Eleventh Era
Subject(s): Common
Thesis: P./J. 7/2023 (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation.
Type: Jurisprudence
COMPLAINT REMEDY PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 97, SECTION I, SUBSECTION B) OF THE AMPARO LAW. IT APPLIES AGAINST THE INCIDENTAL RESOLUTION THAT REVOKES THE EX OFFICIO GRANTING OF SUSPENSION IN INDIRECT AMPARO PROCEEDINGS.”
“Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
Digital Record: 2027518
Instance: Plenary
Eleventh Era
Subject(s): Common
Thesis: P./J. 3/2023 (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation.
Type: Jurisprudence
NOTICE TO THE COMPLAINANT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 64, SECOND PARAGRAPH, OF THE AMPARO LAW. DURING ITS RESPONSE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO RAISE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEGAL PROVISION UNDERLYING THE CAUSE OF IMPROPERNESS NOTICED EX OFFICIO BY THE REVIEWING BODY.”
In Common Matters
The Plenary of the Supreme Court issued a jurisprudence in which it determined that in cases where a demand is presented before an amparo court related to another previously admitted in that jurisdictional body, i.e., filed by the same complainant, with identical acts being challenged, the same responsible authorities, and the derivative lawsuit is pending resolution, it is appropriate to summarily dismiss the newer demand, as the cause of improperness due to litispendence under Article 61, Section X, of the Amparo Law is clearly and unmistakably established.
“Digital Record: 2027496
Instance: Plenary
Eleventh Era
Subject(s): Common
Thesis: P./J. 5/2023 (11th)
Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation.
Type: Jurisprudence
LITISPENDENCE. WHEN A DEMAND IS RECEIVED IN AN AMPARO COURT THAT IS RELATED TO ANOTHER PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED IN THAT JURISDICTIONAL BODY, FILED BY THE SAME COMPLAINANT, AGAINST IDENTICAL CHALLENGED ACTS AND RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT DEMAND CAN BE VALIDLY SUMMARILY DISMISSED, AS THE CAUSE OF IMPROPERNESS UNDER SECTION X OF ARTICLE 61 OF THE AMPARO LAW IS CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY ESTABLISHED.
