Mexico strengthens the efficiency and digitalization of administrative justice with the reform to the Federal Law of Administrative Contentious Proceedings

On June 9, 2026, the decree amending the Federal Law of Administrative Contentious Proceedings (LFPCA) was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF), which entered into force on the day following its publication. Its central purpose is to harmonize the provisions of said Law with the constitutional reforms of the past year, especially with the judicial reform to the Judiciary published on September 15, 2024. Among other aspects, this reform modifies the following:

New procedural deadlines

The reform seeks to expedite the processing of proceedings and avoid undue delays, for which new specific procedural deadlines were established for procedural actions, such as:

• Five business days following the date of filing for the Chambers (Salas) to issue resolutions, when the law does not specify a particular deadline.
• Specific deadlines are incorporated for the processing of motions (incidentes). For example, 45 days are established for issuing a resolution on motions regarding subject-matter incompetence, or 15 days for motions without a special procedure.
• Maximum deadlines are incorporated for issuing judgments in cases assumed by the Superior Chamber (Sala Superior), specifically, 45 days to prepare the draft from the date of assignment to the reporting judge (ponencia), and 45 days to issue the judgment once the prior deadline has elapsed.
• Letters rogatory (exhortos) must be served within a period not exceeding 20 days.

Notifications by jurisdictional bulletin (effectiveness)

The reform modifies the mechanism for the effectiveness of notifications made through the jurisdictional bulletin: whereas previously they took effect on the third day following their publication, such effectiveness will now occur on the second day after the date of publication in said bulletin.

Summary trial (juicio sumario)

The threshold for the admissibility of the summary trial is increased from 15 to 30 times the annual Unit of Measurement and Update (UMA) (from approximately $641,919.60 to $1,283,839.20 Mexican pesos), which will increase the number of cases processed through this avenue. This modification seeks to ensure that more disputes of lesser amounts are resolved expeditiously, reducing the procedural burden and costs for the parties. Likewise, a maximum period of six months is established to issue a judgment in this type of trial, regardless of whether such period may be suspended due to appeals, motions, among others. Additionally, cases brought against responses to requests for refunds of credit balances and payments of undue amounts are added as grounds for the admissibility of the summary trial.

Fiscal review appeal (revisión fiscal)

The threshold for the admissibility of the fiscal review appeal is increased for cases whose amount exceeds 27,000 times the UMA (approximately $3,167,370.00 Mexican pesos), limiting it to cases of special relevance. This is intended to ensure that higher courts intervene only in cases that warrant in-depth analysis due to their legal or economic significance. Additionally, the following grounds for the review appeal are added:

• Resolutions that decide complaint proceedings (instancia de queja).
• Resolutions issued by the National Customs Agency of Mexico or its administrative units.
• Resolutions that declare the nullity of the challenged act or resolution due to defects of form or procedure, provided that the established threshold amount is met.

Modification of the grounds for granting a stay (suspensión)

First, the reform repeals the requirement under which, in order to grant the stay, it was necessary to demonstrate the difficult reparation of the damages or harm that the enforcement of the challenged act could cause to the applicant. This is significant because, pursuant to binding precedent PR.A.C.CN. J/37 A (11a.), issued by the Regional Plenary Court on Administrative and Civil Matters of the Centro-Norte Region, as well as various criteria issued by collegiate circuit courts, this requirement allowed parties to go directly to indirect amparo proceedings, since it could be considered that the requirements for granting the stay were more stringent than those established in the Amparo Law for such purposes, without the need to first exhaust the nullity trial.

Additionally, specific grounds are incorporated under which the stay will not be granted for reasons of social interest and public order. On one hand, it is prohibited to grant it when it would allow activities or services that require a permit, authorization, or concession to be carried out without such authorization, as well as in cases where it would allow the consummation or continuation of infringing conduct or crimes.

Strengthened sanction system

The fining and sanctioning system is comprehensively updated, indexing them to the Unit of Measurement and Update (UMA). Among the most significant are contempt fines for failure to comply with a judgment, ranging from 300 to 1,000 times the UMA; fines for manifestly groundless complaints, ranging from 250 to 600 times the UMA; and fines imposed on court clerks (actuarios) for negligence, ranging from 1 to 3 times the UMA calculated on a monthly basis, with removal from office in the event of recidivism.

These sanctions are not limited to the parties to the proceedings. Administrative liability is also introduced for magistrates who fail to issue rulings within the prescribed time limits, without justified cause and on a repeated basis. Additionally, a new ground for dismissal of recusal motions against magistrates is established when such motions are filed with the purpose of obstructing the proceedings.

Regulatory update and harmonization

The reform replaces references to minimum wages with UMAs, consistent with current regulations, to avoid distortions in the determination of amounts and penalties. References to the TFJA (Federal Court of Administrative Justice) and Mexico City are also updated, adapting the terminology to the current institutional structure. Additionally, references are harmonized with the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities (LGRA), ensuring regulatory coherence and strengthening the legal framework applicable to public service and contentious proceedings.

Digital justice

The online justice system is strengthened, which will allow registration through electronic signature, the creation of electronic case files, and remote consultation thereof, highlighting the possibility that, even in trials conducted through traditional means, the respondent authority or third party may appear and file submissions through said system. This represents a significant advancement toward the modernization and digitalization of administrative justice.

Furthermore, this system seeks to reduce time, costs, and operational burdens, offering the parties greater accessibility and transparency in the management of their cases.

In order to achieve the above, the reform foresees a series of new rules, including the obligation to declare under penalty of perjury the nature of the uploaded document (original, certified copy or ordinary copy), and, if no indication is made, the document shall be presumed to have been submitted as an ordinary copy.

Inclusive language

The online justice system is strengthened, allowing registration through an electronic signature, the creation of electronic case files, and remote access to such files. Notably, even in proceedings conducted through the traditional track, the defendant authority or any third party may appear and file submissions through that system, representing a significant step toward the modernization and digitalization of administrative justice.

This system is intended to reduce timeframes, costs, and operational burdens, while providing the parties with greater accessibility and transparency in the management of their matters.

For the foregoing purposes, the reform establishes a series of new guidelines, including the obligation to state, under oath, the nature of digital documents—whether they are simple copies, certified copies, or originals. If the filing party fails to do so, the documents will be presumed, to that party’s detriment, to be simple copies.

Transitional provisions

In accordance with the proposed transitional provisions, the decree amending the LFPCA will enter into force on the day following its publication in the DOF, except for the following points:

• Article 19, which provides for the authority of the respondent authority or the person acting as a third party to appear in the trial and file submissions through the online justice system. This article will enter into force 180 days after publication in the DOF.
• The new procedural deadlines establishing a maximum time for action by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, which will enter into force 240 days after publication of the decree in the DOF.

Additionally, the obligation of the Tribunal to promote a mass campaign to disseminate the modifications made to the law is provided for.