There have been no cases brought against private actors in Mexico for failing to reduce their GHG emissions or damages relating to climate change. No cases have been brought against pension funds investing in climate change unfriendly portfolios either.

That said, it should be noted that the energy market in Mexico is dominated by major state-owned companies (i.e. Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) and Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), oil and electricity producers, respectively) whose emissions surpass those resulting from private companies. Individuals have targeted their activities through public policy litigation (see Scenario 1) and may directly challenge them through private litigation strategies in future.

Individuals can bring a case against private actors based on the Federal Environmental Liability Law and the Federal Code of Civil Procedures if they wish to target their responsibilities for climate change mitigation and/or adaption measures. These laws can be invoked to remedy personal property damage or injury caused by climate change related events. The Federal Environmental Liability Law grants standing to individuals living in the community adjacent to the environmental damage (degraded land, polluted watercourses, landfills, etc.), and to non-profit environmental organizations, when they act on behalf of an inhabitant of the affected community (article 28, sections I and II). The Federal Code of Civil Procedures establishes that collective actions can be exercised by the representative of a community made up of at least thirty members, and by non-profit environmental organizations legally constituted at least one year prior to the time of filing the legal action (article 585, sections II and III).

The Federal Environmental Liability Law (Articles 13, 14) and the Federal Code of Civil Procedures (articles 604, 605),provide a general framework torepair environmental damage, by establishing that the judge has the ability to condemn the defendant and enforce a requirement to restore the environment to the state it was in prior to their interference. This can be implemented through a requirement for defendants to facilitate environmental regeneration efforts such as reforestation and soil restoration initiatives.

However, currently there is no precedent that has been set for how this could be developed in the area of climate change damages. In this context, a human rights approach may be used to redress climate change damage, keeping in mind the pro personae principle and the conventionality control enshrined in article 1 of the Mexican Constitution.

Individuals of Mexico have not brought any project-specific litigation against the State on the grounds of climate change, but this could change soon as part of the recent surge of climate change specific cases (see Scenario 1).

Cases can be brought by either an individual or a non-profit environmental organization to court through Amparo Law, the Federal Environmental Liability Law, and the Federal Code of Civil Procedures, and the General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information to challenge specific projects of activities.

The Mexican Constitution (Article 107, section I) and the Amparo Law (article 5, section I), recognize legal standing for every natural or moral person that holds a subjective right or a legitimate individual or collective interest. Likewise, the Federal Environmental Liability Law grants standing to individuals living in the community adjacent to the environmental damage (degraded land, polluted watercourses, landfills, etc.), and to non-profit environmental organizations, when they act on behalf of an inhabitant of the affected community (Article 28, sections I and II). The Federal Code of Civil Procedures establishes that collective actions can be exercised by the representative of a community made up of at least thirty members, and by non-profit environmental organizations legally constituted at least one year prior to the time of filing the legal action (Article 585, sections II and III).

Amparo (“juicio de amparo”) can be used as a remedy for the infringement of constitutional rights, commonly regarding human rights violations. Individuals who believe their rights have been infringed due to their government not complying with international or national climate change obligations can file a climate change claim on this basis. It should be noted that the Mexican Constitution recognizes the right to an adequate environment (Article 4) which can be used as a relevant ground to file a case against national climate policy.

There have been several cases, mainly using the Amparo Law, which alleged that projects or initiatives somehow infringed the human right to a healthy environment, enshrined in the Mexican Constitution, though no direct links to a climate change argument have been made. This includes challenges to environmental permits on the bases of failures in the decision-making processes, such as inadequate assessment of specific projects’ risks to human health, inappropriate balance between environmental rights and project’s public utility or, simply, lack of environmental impact assessment.

For example, the Supreme Court Request 225/2015 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) case requested that the environmental impact permit granted to use water from the Sabinos River for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a road in Guadalajara, Jalisco should not be given on the basis that there is a human right to a healthy environment. Similarly, Supreme Court Request 987/2015 (1^st Chamber: SCJN) was based on the grounds that an environmental impact permit should not have been granted for the “Aqueduct Independence” project in Sonora as the human right to a healthy environment was not protected. Further cases have opposed environmental permits being granted for specific projects such as the Supreme Court Request 51/2016 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) to analyse the lack of an EIA for a project approved by the Council of Guadalajara, Jalisco. 

The Supreme Court Review 3/2015 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) and Supreme Court Request 540/2015 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) cases reviewed a prior decision and requested the Supreme Court hear a case regarding the need for a balance between the human right to a healthy environment and public utility for the development of the El Zapotillio Dam and El Zapotillo-Los Altos Aqueduct in Jalisco and Guanajuato project.

Other requests and trials to the Supreme Court regarding opposition to the development of specific projects include the Supreme Court Request 30/2016 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) opposing the construction of the El Zapotillo Dam, Amparo Trial Appeal 211/2016 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) opposing the decree modifying the status of the “Nevado de Toluca National Park”, and Amparo Trial 307/2016 (1^st Chamber: SCJN) and Amparo Trial Appeal 680/2016 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) were inopposition to the “Ecological Thematic Park Laguna del Carpintero” project being an area of municipal public domain on a basis of a human right to a healthy environment.

There have also been a couple of Amparo trials, which request the analysis of pollution to rivers. Amparo Trail Appeal 201/2016 (2^nd Chamber: SCJN) requests an analysis be facilitated in the Salado and Atoyac rivers in Oaxaca while the Amparo Trial 5091/2016 (1t Chamber: SCJN) requests analysis in the Bacanuchi and Sonora rivers in Sonora.

Alternatively, the Federal Code of Civil Procedures and the Federal Environmental Liability Law can be invoked in cases where plaintiffs might question the GHG emissions that result from the licensing of a particular activity or project. Furthermore, plaintiffs might use the General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information, which regulates the procedure to request information from federal or local governments (emitting sources, air quality data, chemicals release, etc.) or claims for misleading or incomplete information.

Individuals have brought cases before courts in Mexico challenging the country’s overall climate and energy policies.

Individuals have the right to bring a case against the government for not complying with their international or national climate change obligations. Cases can be brought to court through the Amparo Law, the Federal Environmental Liability Law, and the Federal Code of Civil Procedures to call for new policies or halt existing ones, as well as interpret or enforce domestic legislation and international treaties such as the Paris Agreement.

The Mexican Constitution (Article 107, section I) and the Amparo Law (article 5, section I) recognize legal standing for every natural or moral person that holds a subjective right or a legitimate individual or collective interest. Likewise, the Federal Environmental Liability Law grants standing to individuals living in the community adjacent to the environmental damage (degraded land, polluted watercourses, landfills, etc.) and to non-profit environmental organizations, when they act on behalf of an inhabitant of the affected community (article 28, sections I and II). The Federal Code of Civil Procedures establishes that collective actions can be exercised by the representative of a community made up of at least thirty members, and by non-profit environmental organizations legally constituted at least one year prior to the time of filing the legal action (article 585, sections II and III).

Amparo (“juicio de amparo”) can be used as a remedy for the infringement of constitutional rights, commonly regarding human rights violations. Individuals who believe their rights have been infringed due to their government not complying with international or national climate change obligations can file a climate change claim on this basis. It should be noted that the Mexican Constitution recognizes the right to an adequate environment (article 4) which can be used as a relevant ground to file a case against national climate policy.

Two relevant climate lawsuits have been filed following a change in the Federal Administration in December 2018 and the regressive energy policy of the new Government (e.g. fossil fuels support and gradual suppression of renewable energies). In 2019, the first case against the State for their overall climate policy was filed before Mexican courts. Fifteen young people (ages 17-23) from Baja California contested the lack of enforcement of the General Law of Climate Change and the failure of the government to meet its targets under the Paris Agreement (Amparo Indirecto 1854/2019). The claim was dismissed by the Judge alleging lack of standing. Following an appeal, in March 2020 the case was admitted by the Seventh Collegiate Tribunal (Admin) First Circuit and is currently under study.

Regarding the new energy policies, several NGOs and private companies have filed a lawsuit against the promotion of fossil fuels and the lack of legal certainty for renewable projects. In August 2020, Greenpeace Mexico contested the Energy Sector Program 2020-2024 (Amparo Indirecto 372/2020). A judge ruled that the provisions of the Program hindered the use of renewable energies, failed to protect the right to a healthy environment, and were not aligned with Mexico’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Consequently, the Program was stayed. The Federal government has announced its decision to appeal the sentence.

Through Amparo Law there have been two other cases in Mexico that reference climate change and cited the UNFCCC as a part of their standing in trial. The 238/2014 Amparo trial was a request to analyse whether a car’s restriction to circulate should be based on environmental criteria or by the car’s registration year. The tribunal detailed the precautionary and prevention principles of the UNFCCC articles 3 and 4 as the grounds of the case. In the 140/2016 Amparo Trial an analysis was requested on the refusal to allow a person to access Mexico City’s Subway System with a folding bike as allowing bicycles on the subway system would encourage reductions in GHG emissions and help achieve Mexico’s UNFCCC objectives.

In December 2020 Mexico submitted to the UNFCCC its updated NDC. In the first term of 2021, the NDC was contested by a Mexican NGO that filed a suit against the federal government. On October 1st a Tribunal ruled that the NDC mitigation section did not raise the ambition as envisaged in the Paris Agreement. The legal case is still under consideration by the Judicial branch.