The enforcement action at Mexico City International Airport is taking place against a legal backdrop that Uber describes as unresolved in its favour. The company argues that a federal court order protects its drivers from detentions and sanctions while a broader legal dispute about airport operations continues. Airport authorities maintain that federal transportation regulations govern their enforcement mandate regardless of the pending litigation.
The Injunction From Mexico City's Thirteenth District Court
Uber states that the Thirteenth District Administrative Court in Mexico City issued a judicial suspension protecting its drivers as part of injunction case 1202/2025, filed by the company in 2025. The order instructs authorities to cease what it describes as arbitrary and discriminatory detentions of vehicles linked to ride-hailing platforms.
According to Uber, the ruling allows its drivers to both drop off and pick up passengers at airports across the country. The company says the suspension specifically instructs the National Guard to comply with the court order, and that enforcement actions involving detentions or sanctions could constitute a violation of the ruling.
Uber has also warned that failure to respect the suspension could expose authorities to penalties under Amparo Law. Article 262 of the legislation establishes sanctions for public officials who fail to comply with judicial rulings issued in constitutional injunction proceedings.
What the Court Order Does Not Decide
Uber has been careful to note that the injunction does not represent a final determination on the broader regulatory status of ride-hailing services within federal airport zones. An injunction suspends the application of a disputed measure while the underlying legal case is resolved. It does not establish that Uber's interpretation of its rights is correct under the final ruling.
This distinction matters for understanding the current situation. The injunction creates a legally contested space in which both the airport authority's enforcement action and Uber's claim of protection have a legal basis, pending a definitive ruling that has not yet been issued.
Federal transportation regulations, administered by the Secretariat of Infrastructure, Communications and Transport, provide the basis for the airport's enforcement position. Uber's argument is that those regulations are being applied in a way that violates constitutional protections — a claim that the Amparo process is designed to evaluate.
What Amparo Is and How Uber Is Using It
Amparo is Mexico's constitutional protection mechanism, through which individuals and companies can challenge government acts they argue violate their constitutional rights. When a court grants an amparo injunction, it suspends the contested government action while the underlying case is heard.
Uber is using the amparo process to contest the application of sector regulations it argues are unconstitutional in their effect. This is a well-established litigation strategy in Mexico. The ride-hailing sector has used it at multiple points in disputes with transport regulatory authorities across different states.
Two Legal Positions, No Final Answer Yet
The practical consequence is a situation where both the airport authority's enforcement action and Uber's claim of protection have a legal basis simultaneously. The injunction does not establish that Uber's interpretation is correct under a final ruling. It suspends the contested measure while the case is resolved.
A final ruling that definitively establishes the regulatory status of ride-hailing at Mexican airports has not been issued. Until it is, enforcement actions and court orders will continue pulling in opposite directions.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What court order does Uber say protects its drivers at Mexico City airport?
A: Uber says the Thirteenth District Administrative Court in Mexico City issued a judicial suspension as part of injunction case 1202/2025. The order instructs authorities to cease detentions of vehicles linked to ride-hailing platforms and, according to Uber, allows its drivers to both drop off and pick up passengers at airports. The ruling specifically instructs the National Guard to comply.
Q: Does Uber's court order mean ride-hailing is definitively legal at Mexican airports?
A: No. Uber has stated that the injunction does not represent a final determination on the regulatory status of ride-hailing within federal airport zones. An injunction suspends a contested measure while the underlying legal case is resolved. The final ruling on whether Uber's interpretation of its rights is correct has not yet been issued.
Q: What is Amparo Law in Mexico?
A: Amparo is Mexico's constitutional protection mechanism, a legal procedure through which individuals and companies can challenge government actions they argue violate their constitutional rights. When a court grants an amparo injunction, it suspends the contested government action while the case is heard. Uber has used this mechanism to contest the application of transport regulations it argues are unconstitutional in their effect.
Q: What penalties could authorities face for ignoring Uber's court order?
A: Uber has warned that failure to respect the injunction could expose authorities to penalties under Amparo Law. Article 262 of the legislation establishes sanctions for public officials who fail to comply with judicial rulings issued in constitutional injunction proceedings.
Q: What is the Secretariat of Infrastructure, Communications and Transport's role in this dispute?
A: The Secretariat of Infrastructure, Communications and Transport administers the federal transportation regulations that provide the basis for the airport's enforcement position. Concessioned taxi operators have argued that the secretariat has not consistently enforced these regulations against ride-hailing services, which was one of the stated triggers for the taxi sector's road blockade.
How to resolve AdBlock issue?