The use of amparo —the most powerful legal remedy in the Mexican judicial system— by Andrés Manuel López Beltrán, the son of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has triggered a nationwide debate in 2025.
Are we witnessing a nepotism scandal, or simply a citizen exercising his constitutional rights?
History of the Amparo in Mexico
The amparo trial is a unique legal institution in the world.
Created in Mexico during the 19th century by jurists Manuel Crescencio Rejón and Mariano Otero, it was designed to protect citizens from abuses of authority, ensuring that no one —not even the government— stands above the Constitution.
Constitutionally enshrined in Articles 103 and 107 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, the amparo guarantees protection of fundamental rights and remains a central pillar of the nation’s judicial system.
What Is the Amparo?
The amparo safeguards any individual from government actions that violate their constitutional rights.It can address issues ranging from labor protections to human rights and civil liberties.When properly used, it reinforces the principle that justice must apply equally to all citizens.
López Beltrán’s Amparo
According to judicial and media reports, López Beltrán’s legal team filed an amparo to suspend investigative procedures involving alleged conflicts of interest and corruption in contracts linked to government projects.
While any citizen is entitled to file for amparo, controversy arose as critics claimed the president’s son received preferential treatment, as his case was reportedly admitted and resolved faster than most.
Public Outrage vs. Legal Legitimacy
For many citizens, this case epitomizes nepotism and inequality before the law.
It symbolizes how the powerful might shield themselves through legal instruments that most citizens struggle to access.
However, constitutional scholars argue that the amparo is a right guaranteed by law —and denying it would, paradoxically, violate constitutional rights.
Thus, the judicial system faces a dilemma between public perception and legal legitimacy.
Constitutional Foundations of the Amparo
The amparo rests on two central constitutional provisions:
- Article 103: empowers federal courts to protect human rights recognized by the Constitution.
- Article 107: regulates the procedures, appeals, and execution of judgments related to amparo cases.
Together, these provisions form the basis of the Amparo Law, which details the process and ensures fairness and accessibility for every citizen.
The Problem of Amparo Abuse
López Beltrán’s case renews concern over the increasing abuse of the amparo in Mexico.
Common Examples of Misuse
- Powerful individuals employ amparos to delay or obstruct trials.
- Corporations use them to avoid regulatory sanctions.
- Ordinary citizens face prohibitive legal costs and lengthy delays.
This imbalance raises serious questions about access to justice, transforming the amparo from a citizens’ safeguard into a privilege for the elite.
Social Impact of the Amparo
Historically, the amparo has been instrumental in protecting human rights and strengthening democracy in Mexico.
However, current debates question whether this constitutional tool remains equally effective and impartial amid social and economic inequality.
Experts’ Opinions
Legal Voices
“The amparo itself does not discriminate by name or wealth, but the judicial system often does.”— Dr. Patricia Hernández, Constitutional Scholar, UNAM.
“The problem is not the amparo, but the structural inequality that conditions access to it.”— Rodrigo Medina, Human Rights Attorney.
Statistics on Amparo Filings
According to data from the Federal Judiciary Council, more than 160,000 amparos were filed in 2024 —yet only about 18% were ruled in favor of citizens.
These numbers reinforce concerns about selective access to justice and the perception that the institution primarily benefits political and economic elites.
International Comparisons
Several Latin American nations have adopted similar mechanisms:
- Argentina uses the recurso de amparo, a simplified and expedited process.
- Colombia implements the acción de tutela, an immediate remedy for human rights violations.
Mexico, despite being the originator of the amparo doctrine, now faces the challenge of modernizing its Amparo Law to ensure an equitable and transparent system.
Conclusion
The amparo itself is not the scandal; the scandal lies in the inequality of access.The López Beltrán case forces Mexico to reflect on whether its judicial system protects everyone equally —or only those with influence.
Reforming the amparo does not mean weakening it, but rather restoring its democratic and constitutional essence.