SCJN outlines key criteria on mining reform: five isolated precedents from the same amparo injuctions clarify the scope of non-retroactivity and regulatory obligations

The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation published, on Friday, August 8, 2025, in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation, five isolated theses arising from the same amparo on review (AR 391/2024, TMXI Resources, S.A. de C.V.), which clarify the scope of the 2023 reform regarding mining and water concessions. Taken together, the holdings emphasize that various changes introduced by the decree do not violate the principle of non-retroactivity, as they concern legal expectancies and regulatory conditions rather than acquired rights. They also clarify the framework of obligations with respect to minerals not specified in concession titles.

Key takeaways from the theses:

1. Non-retroactivity and expropriation: Eliminating the “right to obtain” the expropriation of land for mining works is not retroactive and does not affect acquired rights, because under the prior regime expropriation was never automatic; it was always subject to requirements, expert opinions, and an administrative decision (Reg. 2030830).
2. Non-retroactivity and extensions: Reducing the term and number of concession extensions does not violate non-retroactivity. An extension is a mere expectancy subject to an application and the authority’s evaluation; it is not a right incorporated into the concessionaire’s legal sphere upon the initial grant (Reg. 2030832).
3. Mine waters for non-mining uses: Abolishing the preferential right to obtain concessions for waters derived from mining operations when intended for uses other than mining exploitation is likewise not retroactive. Such “preference” never guaranteed the concession; it required an application and compliance with the National Waters Law (Reg. 2030831).
4. Temporary occupation and easements: Requiring concessionaires to “apply for” temporary occupation and the establishment of easements does not violate non-retroactivity. Even previously, these figures did not operate by full right; they required procedure and a reasoned administrative resolution. The wording change clarifies their true legal nature (Reg. 2030833).
5. New regulatory conditions in titles: Obligations concerning water use (including “industrial mining use”), assignment/transfer of concessions, and social and environmental guarantee mechanisms are regulatory clauses that may be aligned with the current legal framework without affecting the essential content of the title; therefore, there is no prohibited retroactivity (Reg. 2030834).
6. Freedom to work and non-specified minerals: The obligation to deliver to the Ministry of Economy minerals extracted that are not expressly listed in new titles does not infringe the freedom to work. The precedent also clarifies that titles granted under the prior “mining lot” regime preserve the right to exploit all minerals within the lot, except those reserved to the State or expressly prohibited (Reg. 2030844).

Context and vote

All five isolated precedents arise from the same injuction (Amparo en revisión 391/2024), decided on June 25, 2025, by a three-vote majority. Opinion authored by Justice Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo; dissenting votes by Justices Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá and Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena; Justice Loretta Ortiz Ahlf concurred in the judgment with separate considerations.

Miguel Rivera

Associate