Court Decision Reinforces State Dominance Over Mining Sector

On Sept. 25, 2025, the Plenary of the “New” Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, resolved constitutional appeals AR 123/2025 and AR 583/2025, and decided to overturn two amparo (constitutional relief) previously granted to private parties that challenged a transitory provision of the 2023 amendments to the Mining Law, which mandates that all pending applications for new mining concessions be dismissed outright upon the decree’s entry into force, a measure that certainly froze a significant number of projects awaiting approval by the Ministry of Economy.

The contested legislation, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on May 8, 2023, introduced sweeping changes to the regulatory framework, modifying and repealing provisions across the Mining Law, the National Water Law, and related environmental legislation, the alleged purpose of which, among others, was to transform how mining concessions are awarded, as well as to restrain the rights of current titleholders. Historically, mining concessions were granted over available terrain to the first applicant who met the stipulated requirements; however, the 2023 amendment replaced this model, establishing that concessions now be granted exclusively through public bidding.

Among the most disruptive provisions for the industry was enshrined in the third paragraph of the Fifth Transitory Article of the decree, which explicitly ordered that “pending applications for new exploration and exploitation concessions shall be dismissed without further processing.” This action directly targeted applicants who had followed the legal requirements under the previous procedure, but whose requests had not yet been processed or resolved by the Ministry of Economy prior to May 8, 2023, and the industry immediately responded to this measure through the submission of several constitutional claims (including the cases that derived in the appeals AR123/2025 and AR583/2024), challenging this dismissal mechanism as an unconstitutional infringement upon vested rights.

In both appeals AR 123/2025 and AR 583/2024, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the arguments related to challenge of retroactive application of the Fifth Transitory Article (regarding the automatic dismissal mechanism) were inadmissible. Instead, the Court asserted that such provision does not violate the principle of retroactivity, through applying the “theory of acquired rights,” arguing that applicants who submitted requests before the amendment held only a mere “expectation of right” to obtain a concession, not an acquired right itself. It further argued that the previous law did not obligate the authority to grant the concession simply upon request, and that since the 2023 decree fundamentally changed the process to mandatory public bidding, the pending applications cannot be resolved under the old, abrogated norms without negatively impacting the applicants themselves, as they would not meet new requirements, or contradicting the new regulatory framework. In this regard, the Court characterized the change in processing requirements as a procedural aspect, permissible under constitutional principles even if it affects ongoing administrative procedures.

With this decision, the Mexican Court upheld the validity of the mechanism of automatic dismissal of pending applications, confirming that the pending requests must be dismissed, becoming a controlling precedent for other similar amparo procedures pending resolution, as due to the decision of the higher court, lower courts handling pending challenges must align with this interpretation or otherwise risk being overturned. Therefore, the rulings not only affect the particular plaintiff, but rather signal the intention of the Court to bar further judicial relief on the same argument.

The decision sharpens legal uncertainty for applicants that sought concessions before the amendment, but had not yet secured them, as their hopes for judicial protection now appear diminished, which could deter investment proposals relying on pending applications, particularly smaller operators unable to secure titles in advance.

From a macroeconomic and policy perspective, the Court’s decision reinforces the federal administration’s regulatory control over the mining sector, signaling a policy shift toward stricter state dominance and reduced judicial intervention, however, this carries significant economic and reputational consequences, as both domestic and international investors may interpret the decision as evidence of a more rigid and less predictable regulatory environment, one in which property expectations can be nullified by legislative command and upheld by judiciary endorsement.

As global mining capital increasingly gravitates toward jurisdictions offering regulatory clarity, the Mexican mining sector may face a competitive disadvantage in attracting exploration investment; the unsettling effect on new projects could slow capital inflows, limit employment opportunities in mining regions, and reduce fiscal revenues associated with exploration and production.

The decision is likely to erode Mexico’s attractiveness as a mining investment destination, particularly in a global context where capital increasingly gravitates toward jurisdictions offering stability and clear rules of engagement, and the loss of confidence generated by this precedent could slow down exploration projects, reduce capital inflows, and constrain the sector’s contribution to regional development. In the broader scheme, the ruling underscores the growing divergence between environmental and sovereignty-based policy objectives, on the one hand, and the practical needs of a competitive mining sector, on the other. Unless mitigated through future legislative adjustments or public-private dialogue, this precedent may mark the beginning of a more restrictive era for the Mexican mining industry, characterized by diminished trust, slower investment, and heightened regulatory risk.