By Regina Bojórquez Campuzano*
Civil society organizations are key players not only for raising awareness of environmental problems, but also for being one of the main drivers of actions to address them. However, recent court decisions and legal reforms in Mexico pose new challenges to their work, which includes, among other activities, taking legal action to defend the environment.
The recent reform to the Amparo Law and the discussions within the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, as well as the contradictory rulings in case 217/2021 , have called into question the legal concept of “legitimate interest,” which grants civil society organizations standing before the courts. Consequently, the role of environmental civil society organizations faces limitations that redefine their pursuit of justice.
Next, we will analyze the essential aspects to understand the challenges to the legitimate interest of civil associations and their implications.
- Legitimate interest as access to environmental justice.
Legitimate interest is the concept that has allowed civil associations to promote protections in defense of collective rights, without needing to demonstrate direct harm.
In environmental matters, this figure allows us to maintain that the defense of the environment is a collective interest and that it can be represented by civil society organizations whose social purpose is the protection of the environment.
Thanks to this, civil associations have been able to file injunctions to protect common goods —such as the climate, water, air or ecosystems— and thus prevent damage before it can happen.
This figure aligns with international principles such as Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and the Escazú Agreement, which promote citizen participation and access to environmental justice.
- The legitimate interest of civil associations in access to environmental justice.
On December 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation discussed Contradiction of Criteria 217/2021, since one of the criteria determined that the social purpose is not enough to prove legitimate interest and that “ associations must demonstrate a concrete or differentiated impact, since the right to a healthy environment corresponds only to the human person, that is, it is inherent to natural persons” ; while the other criterion maintains that its social purpose is enough to prove legitimate interest, since the link between the claimed human right and the complaining legal entity can be deduced, as it is a task carried out repeatedly and systematically .”
The majority of the full court held that the criteria compared by the collegiate courts did not present sufficient common legal elements to unify them, and therefore resolved that there was no contradiction. However, the debate remains relevant from an interpretative perspective because it allowed for the identification of the different positions that coexist within the full court regarding access to justice in environmental matters. In particular, the discussion highlighted a position that requires demonstrating a specific or differentiated impact to recognize a legitimate interest, even in cases of collective defense of the environment and climate change. While this position was not adopted by the majority, its mere formulation raises concerns, as it could hinder the preventive action of civil society organizations in the face of environmental risks. Given the coexistence of different criteria, there is a risk that judges will apply the most restrictive standard.
If that were the case, Mexico could deviate from its international commitments, such as the Escazú Agreement, which requires the elimination of barriers to access to environmental justice for individuals and associations.
- The 2025 reform: what changes and why it worries us.
On the other hand, the decree published on October 16, 2025 reformed the Amparo Law, incorporating the language of " real and differentiated impact ", which reaffirms the restrictive view of legitimate interest.
It is important to clarify that the expression “real and differentiated impact” is not new to amparo proceedings; it has always been associated with legal interest, that is, when a person can demonstrate that an authority directly affected a right they possess. Legitimate interest, on the other hand, applies to situations where there is no direct impact, but rather a special connection to the issue at hand, as occurs in many cases of collective environmental or climate action. The reform of October 16, 2025, did not eliminate legitimate interest, but it incorporated the same standard of proof by requiring that, even in these cases, an individualizable impact be demonstrated, making its recognition more difficult.
This simultaneity between the plenary discussion and the law reinforces a trend of institutional closure that weakens the collective defense of the environment, thus reducing the scope of action of civil society.
- Legal and practical consequences for civil associations.
Civil associations now face greater obstacles in promoting environmental protections.
The requirement to prove a direct impact excludes most preventive cases and weakens citizen oversight.
The above may result in:
- Lack of judicial control over projects with high environmental impact.
- Difficulty in protecting ecosystems before damage occurs.
- Limitation on citizen participation and the work of organizations.
These restrictions not only affect civil society organizations, but also jeopardize compliance with international obligations regarding human rights, the environment, and climate change, since access to justice is one of the main ways to hold states and companies accountable for their obligations to protect the climate system and the environment in general. When this access is limited, the possibility of preventing environmental damage and holding companies accountable before the impacts become irreversible is reduced.
- Judicial interpretation as the key to the environmental future.
Therefore, recent discussions in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation regarding the scope of legitimate interest have opened a debate that continues to evolve.
Beyond the specific cases and those to be discussed, it is worth asking: How is citizen participation in environmental protection understood? How can those who act in the collective interest be included?
These decisions have an impact that transcends the judicial sphere. They determine whether we move towards a progressive, inclusive, and preventative environmental justice system, or whether we reinforce a restrictive vision that excludes civil society organizations that have historically represented the public interest.
The key is that authorities, jurisdictional bodies, legislators, and civil associations maintain constant dialogue on the need to harmonize legal frameworks with international standards, always taking into account current problems and the needs of society to promote broad, informed, and effective participation.
* Regina Bojórquez Campuzano is a lawyer and an AIDA intern
By Regina Bojórquez Campuzano*
Civil society organizations are key players not only for raising awareness of environmental problems, but also for being one of the main drivers of actions to address them. However, recent court decisions and legal reforms in Mexico pose new challenges to their work, which includes, among other activities, taking legal action to defend the environment.
The recent reform to the Amparo Law and the discussions within the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, as well as the contradictory rulings in case 217/2021 , have called into question the legal concept of “legitimate interest,” which grants civil society organizations standing before the courts. Consequently, the role of environmental civil society organizations faces limitations that redefine their pursuit of justice.
Next, we will analyze the essential aspects to understand the challenges to the legitimate interest of civil associations and their implications.
- Legitimate interest as access to environmental justice.
Legitimate interest is the concept that has allowed civil associations to promote protections in defense of collective rights, without needing to demonstrate direct harm.
In environmental matters, this figure allows us to maintain that the defense of the environment is a collective interest and that it can be represented by civil society organizations whose social purpose is the protection of the environment.
Thanks to this, civil associations have been able to file injunctions to protect common goods —such as the climate, water, air or ecosystems— and thus prevent damage before it can happen.
This figure aligns with international principles such as Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and the Escazú Agreement, which promote citizen participation and access to environmental justice.
- The legitimate interest of civil associations in access to environmental justice.
On December 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation discussed Contradiction of Criteria 217/2021, since one of the criteria determined that the social purpose is not enough to prove legitimate interest and that “ associations must demonstrate a concrete or differentiated impact, since the right to a healthy environment corresponds only to the human person, that is, it is inherent to natural persons” ; while the other criterion maintains that its social purpose is enough to prove legitimate interest, since the link between the claimed human right and the complaining legal entity can be deduced, as it is a task carried out repeatedly and systematically .”
The majority of the full court held that the criteria compared by the collegiate courts did not present sufficient common legal elements to unify them, and therefore resolved that there was no contradiction. However, the debate remains relevant from an interpretative perspective because it allowed for the identification of the different positions that coexist within the full court regarding access to justice in environmental matters. In particular, the discussion highlighted a position that requires demonstrating a specific or differentiated impact to recognize a legitimate interest, even in cases of collective defense of the environment and climate change. While this position was not adopted by the majority, its mere formulation raises concerns, as it could hinder the preventive action of civil society organizations in the face of environmental risks. Given the coexistence of different criteria, there is a risk that judges will apply the most restrictive standard.
If that were the case, Mexico could deviate from its international commitments, such as the Escazú Agreement, which requires the elimination of barriers to access to environmental justice for individuals and associations.
- The 2025 reform: what changes and why it worries us.
On the other hand, the decree published on October 16, 2025 reformed the Amparo Law, incorporating the language of " real and differentiated impact ", which reaffirms the restrictive view of legitimate interest.
It is important to clarify that the expression “real and differentiated impact” is not new to amparo proceedings; it has always been associated with legal interest, that is, when a person can demonstrate that an authority directly affected a right they possess. Legitimate interest, on the other hand, applies to situations where there is no direct impact, but rather a special connection to the issue at hand, as occurs in many cases of collective environmental or climate action. The reform of October 16, 2025, did not eliminate legitimate interest, but it incorporated the same standard of proof by requiring that, even in these cases, an individualizable impact be demonstrated, making its recognition more difficult.
This simultaneity between the plenary discussion and the law reinforces a trend of institutional closure that weakens the collective defense of the environment, thus reducing the scope of action of civil society.
- Legal and practical consequences for civil associations.
Civil associations now face greater obstacles in promoting environmental protections.
The requirement to prove a direct impact excludes most preventive cases and weakens citizen oversight.
The above may result in:
- Lack of judicial control over projects with high environmental impact.
- Difficulty in protecting ecosystems before damage occurs.
- Limitation on citizen participation and the work of organizations.
These restrictions not only affect civil society organizations, but also jeopardize compliance with international obligations regarding human rights, the environment, and climate change, since access to justice is one of the main ways to hold states and companies accountable for their obligations to protect the climate system and the environment in general. When this access is limited, the possibility of preventing environmental damage and holding companies accountable before the impacts become irreversible is reduced.
- Judicial interpretation as the key to the environmental future.
Therefore, recent discussions in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation regarding the scope of legitimate interest have opened a debate that continues to evolve.
Beyond the specific cases and those to be discussed, it is worth asking: How is citizen participation in environmental protection understood? How can those who act in the collective interest be included?
These decisions have an impact that transcends the judicial sphere. They determine whether we move towards a progressive, inclusive, and preventative environmental justice system, or whether we reinforce a restrictive vision that excludes civil society organizations that have historically represented the public interest.
The key is that authorities, jurisdictional bodies, legislators, and civil associations maintain constant dialogue on the need to harmonize legal frameworks with international standards, always taking into account current problems and the needs of society to promote broad, informed, and effective participation.
* Regina Bojórquez Campuzano is a lawyer and an AIDA intern