Mexico’s Supreme Court Threatens Green Justice

Chetumal, Mexico — The collective Sélvame del Tren has described a jurisprudence project promoted within Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) as an unprecedented threat to citizen rights. The project seeks to restrict the ability of civil associations to file collective injunctions, known as "amparos," in defense of the environment.

A statement published by the collective warns that the proposal, presented by Minister Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, could close the door to environmental justice for millions of Mexicans. The document states that more than 30 civil organizations from across the country have joined the call for alert.

According to the disseminated statement, the project proposes to limit the "legitimate interest" that currently allows social groups to promote amparo lawsuits without needing to demonstrate direct and personal harm. This principle has been key to halting polluting projects, preventing the clearing of jungles, and demanding access to potable water in vulnerable zones.

However, if the Court's proposal is approved, Sélvame del Tren asserts that they would have to prove specific damages to their members or their assets, which would make it practically impossible to intervene in defense of collective rights and the natural environment.

The organization warned that this new criterion not only represents a legal setback but would also have real consequences for the population. It states that limiting environmental amparos would reduce the capacity to stop polluting activities, which would lead to greater deterioration of air, water, and ecosystems in general.

“Access to a healthy environment is not a privilege; it is a human right recognized by the Constitution,” the communiqué mentions. “If citizens are prevented from going to the courts to defend it, the door is opened to predatory practices that would put the health of communities at risk.”

One of the most sensitive points, they note, is the right to water. The group recalled that in numerous regions of the country, especially in the Yucatán Peninsula, groundwater is in danger due to disorderly urban growth and the excessive use of agrochemicals. Therefore, restricting amparos would be “a sentence against the water security of future generations,” it indicated.

Faced with this scenario, the organization urgently called on citizens not to remain indifferent.

“It is imperative that civil society and all those interested in protecting the environment unite to reject the proposal,” it adds.

The group asserted that limiting the participation of citizen organizations in legal processes not only affects environmental protection but also weakens the country's democratic principles. If collectives are prevented from questioning governmental or corporate decisions, it favors a model where private interest prevails over the common good.

“A system that silences civil organizations limits the possibilities for sustainable development and perpetuates a model that prioritizes private and/or governmental interest over the common good,” it warned.

The controversial project is being discussed within the framework of the contradiction of criteria 217/2021, which seeks to define whether civil associations can or cannot promote amparos based solely on the social objective contained in their constitutive documents.

They reiterate that the minister proposes that this argument no longer be valid and that, instead, organizations must demonstrate personal and verifiable harm to prove legitimate interest. This would contravene previous decisions of the Court itself, which has historically recognized the importance of allowing the participation of organizations in causes related to human rights, education, or migration.

If this position is approved, thousands of collectives in Mexico would be left without legal tools to stop projects and policies that affect the environment, as in many cases ecological damages are diffuse or manifest in the long term, which makes their direct proof in a single individual difficult.

The organization questions the intention to modify the only instrument citizens have to enforce their rights.

“If the possibility of presenting collective amparos is eliminated, what legal recourse do we have left?” they posed.

Furthermore, they emphasized that the amparo is not a privilege for lawyers or elites, but a citizen tool that has allowed for halting everything from illegal logging to toxic emissions in various regions of the country.

“The health of the population, the right to water, and the need for a healthy environment must be at the center of public policies, not a concession subject to restrictive judicial criteria,” the communiqué concludes.

For the activists, the discussion in the Supreme Court should not be seen as a simple technical debate, but as a definition of the country's direction.

“What is at stake is not only a legal criterion, but the possibility that citizens can continue to be guardians of our environment.”

To date, the SCJN has not set a definitive date for the resolution of the case. However, environmental defense organizations do not rule out promoting amparo lawsuits for violations of the right to a healthy environment.