Read This if You Hold a Mining Concession Title in Mexico

As we stated a couple of years ago, after the various reforms published in Mexico on May 8, 2023, in the Official Gazette of the Federation, which amended provisions of the then valid Mining Law, the National Waters Law, the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, and the General Law for the Prevention and Comprehensive Management of Waste (which all together we will call for the purposes of this article the “New Mining Legal Framework”), without a doubt, the mining industry in Mexico was living and facing a new era. 

The New Mining Legal Framework represented the most radical and profound legal change for the sector in the last three decades, not only because of the number of articles of the Mining Law reformed (45 out of 59), but also because of the meaning and purpose of the amendments, which also included the reforms of other federal laws, which broadly, but not limited to, were setting new rules for the granting of mining concessions; imposed the obligation to determine the social impacts and to perform prior consultation with Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples; reduced the duration and extension of mining concessions; conditioned the mining concession granting to water availability and set the obligation of obtaining a water concession for industrial use for mining; modified the scope and powers of the SGM (Servicio Geologico Mexicano) and the exploration activities regime; increased the regulation for the transfer of mining concession titles rights, the obligation to provide a “financial vehicle” for compensation purposes, and added new causes for cancellation of the titles; and finally, incorporated a chapter on crimes with sanctions that include criminal sanctions of five to 15 years, and up to 5% of annual income for omissions or "criminal conduct" in mining matters.

Through an “amparo,” many individuals and corporations that hold mining concessions in Mexico challenged the legality and constitutionality of this New Mining Legal Framework,  and recently, the First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court  (SCJN) resolved in its session held on June 25, 2025, the “Amparo en revision 391/2024,” which is a judicial review of a district judge’s decision granting partial amparo to the complainant, a corporation holding mining concessions, against the New Mining Legal Framework that is setting a relevant precedent. In this specific case, the complainant argued that the legislative reforms violated their acquired rights, imposed retroactive burdens, and were enacted through a flawed legislative process. The respondents, including the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and the president of Mexico at that time, challenged the district judge’s ruling, asserting that the complainant lacked standing, the decree was constitutional, and the legislative process complied with legal requirements. The case was escalated to the SCJN due to its constitutional significance, particularly regarding the principles of non-retroactivity, due process, and legislative procedure. 

In March of this year, at the PDAC Convention, we explained in a panel organized by Mexico Business that it seemed that mining concessions holders were living a duplicity in their regulations. On the one hand, there were the holders that had obtained a suspension for the effects of the New Mining Legal Framework and even an amparo granted in their favor, and then, there were all the holders of mining concessions that had not been granted suspensions, amparo protections, or that did not even challenge the legal reforms., So, at the same time, it seemed that the old Mining Law and the new Mining Law were coexisting in a complex dichotomy with different regulations for different concessionaires.

However, the resolution of the SCJN spans 172 pages, and includes significant portions detailing the complainant’s arguments (concepts of violation), and the respondent’s counterarguments. The SCJN’s analysis and resolution have clarified this duplicity of legal framework by deeming the New Mining Legal Framework as valid, revoking the district judge’s decision, denying the amparo to the complainant, and upholding the constitutionality of the legal reforms passed in May 2023.

How does that impact me, if I am a holder of a mining concession? Well, now our Supreme Court has detailed and explained what is going to happen with the concessions that were granted before the reforms passed in May 2023. Here is a quick summary of the effects:

A) Acquired rights. 

The SCJN clarified that mining concessions are “administrative acts of a mixed nature,” combining “essential clauses” as if they were a contract (for example, duration, object, and scope of the concession) and that these essential clauses were only those to be recognized as acquired rights; and “regulatory clauses” (derived from general legislation that regulate them, subject to modification without consent of the concessionaire). The court emphasized that concessions do not grant absolute property rights over minerals, as these remain under the direct dominion of the nation (Article 27, Constitution). Thus, modifications to regulatory conditions do not necessarily violate acquired rights, and therefore, do not violate Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution.

The SCJN explained that acquired rights imply the incorporation of a specific asset, power, or advantage into a person's legal estate, which cannot be disregarded or modified to their detriment, either by acts of will or by subsequent legal reforms. On the contrary, legal expectations represent only a possibility or hope that, in the future, a favorable legal situation will arise in accordance with the legislation in force at a given time, without yet constituting an established right.

So, if you hold a mining concession title that was granted before 2023, your acquired rights are:

1. Duration or term of the concession

2. Authorized subject matter (exploration or exploitation, or both)

3. Specific object of the use, meaning the mining lot and the authorization to exploit the specific minerals granted.

Therefore, all these previous aspects form part of your concessionaire's legal patrimony and, therefore, any unilateral modification would, in fact, amount to a revocation of the title, which is legally inadmissible without formal proceedings and without respect for the rights to a hearing and due process.

B) Legal Expectations

• Exploration and Exploitation Rights:

The complainant’s claim that the decree retroactively restricted exploration and extraction rights was deemed unfounded by the Court. The Court noted that the complainant held exploitation concessions, not exploration, and the reform’s requirement to specify minerals did not alter the core rights of existing concessions. The court cited Article 19 of the Mining Law, which allows exploitation of all minerals within a lot unless explicitly reserved, and found no evidence that the reform modified this for the complainant’s titles. This means that a good recommendation is to verify immediately in your mining concession title, on page 1 and 2, the “type of the concession” (“clase de concesión”) to verify whether the title allows you as holder, only to explore, exploit, or both.

• Water Usage Rights:

The elimination of preferential rights to mine water for non-mining uses (aguas de laboreo) was upheld as a “regulatory change” and, therefore, the water usage rights were not considered as acquired rights. The Court referenced the National Waters Law, which now classifies mining water use as “industrial use in mining” (Article 81 Bis), requiring a separate concession. This change was deemed constitutional, as it aligns with the state’s authority to regulate national resources and does not affect the essential rights of the concession.

• Transmission of Concessions:

The requirement for public registration with prior approval from the authority of concession transfers (Article 23, Mining Law) was upheld as a regulatory measure to enhance transparency and oversight. The Court ruled that the previous ability to transfer via private contracts was not an acquired right but a regulatory condition subject to change.

• Financial Guarantees:

The obligation to provide a financial vehicle for environmental restoration (Article 20 and Transitory Article 10) was deemed a regulatory condition aimed at protecting the environment. The Court found no violation of retroactivity, as this requirement applies prospectively and does not alter the core rights of the concession.

• Prohibitions in Protected Areas and Extension Rights:

The prohibition on mining in natural protected areas and restrictions on concession extensions were upheld as constitutional. The Court noted that these measures serve the public interest in environmental protection and sustainable development, as outlined in the decree’s explanatory statement. 

The right to extensions of concessions was not an acquired right but a discretionary expectation subject to regulatory changes. Therefore, once the current validity or term that was established in our mining concessions titles is expired (this is indeed an acquired right), then, the new rules for extension derived from the New Mining Legal Framework will apply. The SCJN held that the concessionaire's willingness to extend the concession is not sufficient, since granting the extension is a discretionary power of the authority, subject to verification that the need to grant it still exists, that the rules are being complied with at the time, and that no circumstances have arisen that would give rise to the termination of the concession.

• Expropriation and Servitudes:

The removal of automatic rights to expropriation or temporary occupation was ruled non-retroactive and valid, as these were conditional on administrative approval even under the prior regime. The Court found that such changes are within the legislature’s authority to regulate land use for mining and that these rights were not acquired rights, but legal expectations.

As a general conclusion, the SCJN concluded that the New Mining Legal Framework modifications were regulatory in nature, not affecting the essential components of the complainant’s concessions or acquired rights. The Court relied on different jurisprudence to affirm that regulatory conditions can be modified without violating Article 14’s non-retroactivity principle, as they do not constitute acquired rights in the strict sense.

A relevant aspect of the resolution of this case by the Court was the ability of a citizen or a corporation to challenge irregularities in legislative processes, concluding that the legislative process of the New Mining Legal Framework was constitutionally valid, as it adhered to the principles of democratic deliberation and complied with procedural requirements. The Court emphasized that irregularities in legislative procedures do not automatically grant standing to private parties (individuals or corporations) unless they directly affect their rights, as opposed to the standing granted to legislative groups that are part of the lower chamber, or the Senate.

This resolution has consequently produced the reality that we need to accept and work together accordingly. It seems that the New Mining Legal Framework that was passed in May 2023 is now the only effective and constitutional legal framework that applies to our mining concessions, and now more than ever, keeping the mining concessions valid is paramount. This includes, at the same time, complying with all the obligations described in Article 27 and subsequent articles, but mainly, avoiding any cancellation causes, as of those described in Article 42 of the new Mining Law. 

A highly regulated industry, as mining is, will now be required to adapt again to remain compliant and exceed the expectations from the new legal framework and the secondary regulations that will come with it. We are on this journey together, and we will navigate it successfully., The new conscientious and responsible mining industry of Mexico will emerge and flourish more united and stronger than ever.

Link to the resolution of the Court:

https://www2.scjn.gob.mx/juridica/engroses/1/2024/2/2_334415_7321_firmado.pdf