Court Gives Profepa 72 Hours to Clarify Tren Maya Closure Order

Chetumal, Quintana Roo — A federal court has given Mexico’s Federal Environmental Protection Agency (Profepa) 72 hours to report whether it issued a definitive closure order on Tren Maya construction works, and to submit the documents backing up its answer.

The First Collegiate Court of the Twenty-Seventh Circuit issued the order in connection with administrative file PFPS/IA/001/2025. Profepa must state whether a definitive closure order numbered PFPA/RN/018-2025 exists in that file.

The request is addressed to José Luis Pedro Funes Izaguirre, the official in charge of Profepa’s Office of Environmental Protection and Territorial Management in Quintana Roo, or whoever currently holds the post.

The court set a fine of 115 Unidades de Medida y Actualización — the inflation-indexed unit used for penalties in Mexico — equivalent to about 13,490 pesos if the order is not obeyed.

Part of an Amparo Challenge

The order forms part of file 582/2026, an amparo lawsuit filed by José Guillermo Urbina Bravo and other environmentalists who have challenged various aspects of the Tren Maya project in court, particularly over alleged environmental damage and compliance with environmental impact statements, known in Mexico as MIA.

In this case, the contested acts concern the administrative agreement that exempted certain works from the requirement to file an environmental impact statement. The exemption was granted to Tren Maya, S.A. de C.V. under official letter SRA/DGIRA/DG-01735-26, issued on Feb. 25, 2026.

The plaintiffs argue the works do not sit on a preexisting road and that forest vegetation, jungle, coastal ecosystems and wetlands had already been affected. They therefore question whether the environmental exemption was lawful.

In mid-June, the Fifth District Court denied the petitioners’ request for a definitive suspension of the works, a decision they appealed.

The case then reached the First Collegiate Court, which asked Profepa for information and documentation before ruling on the merits of the appeal.

The request carries weight because, according to the case file, the environmental authority had not fully demonstrated to the court that the definitive closure order under review actually exists.

The court scheduled the constitutional hearing for Nov. 6, when it will weigh the evidence submitted by both sides and rule on the amparo.