Court annuls 150-peso fee for registering births in Coahuila

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared the invalidity of the 150-peso fee for birth registrations in Coahuila de Zaragoza, upon resolving Unconstitutionality Action 27/2026. The ruling, approved unanimously by nine votes in the session of June 15, 2026, was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on November 4, 2026, in the Judicial Power section, starting on page 140.

The ruling annuls Article 67, fraction I, of the Tax Law for the State of Coahuila de Zaragoza, which established a fee of $150.00 (one hundred and fifty pesos 00/100 M.N.) in the Civil Registry tariff for “birth registration.” This fee was introduced through Decree 420, published in the entity’s Official Gazette on December 30, 2025, and effective since January 1, 2026.

The action was promoted by the National Human Rights Commission, through its president, considering that the norm contravenes Articles 1 and 4 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, as well as the second transitory article of the decree that added the right to identity, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 17, 2014. That transitory article gave legislatures six months—concluding at the end of 2014—to exempt birth registration and the first certified copy of the act from payment.

The constitutional mandate that Coahuila ignored

The ruling maintains that, since January 1, 2015, no state treasury may establish fees for birth registrations or for the first certified act. The rapporteur, Minister Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra, emphasized that gratuity does not allow for deadlines or conditions based on age, and that the charge constitutes an economic barrier that primarily affects the poorest, indigenous, migrant populations, or those in rural and border areas.

The court also dismissed the arguments of the local Executive and Congress, which invoked the Decree by which tax incentives are granted regarding state contributions: an annual incentive does not correct the flaw, because it presupposes that the fee is incurred and then exempted, and it remains at the discretion of the head of the Executive to grant it each fiscal year.

Incentives annulled by extension

In addition to Article 67, fraction I, the invalidity was extended to two precepts of the tax incentive decree, which conditioned the gratuity:

• Article 45: exempted 100% only of the birth registration of unregistered persons over 18 years of age.
• Article 47: exempted the registration of girls and boys born and residing in the state, tied to the guidelines of the National Campaign for Universal and Timely Registration.
• Article 41 of the local Civil Registry Law: only sets a period of 60 days and does not expressly prohibit any charge.

The Court supported its decision on jurisprudence P./J. 32/2006, regarding the extension of effects, and in a line of more than twenty precedents, including actions 3/2016, 6/2017, 27/2021, 104/2023, and 45/2024, as well as 16/2026, resolved on May 25, 2026.

Unanimous Vote and Effects

The ruling was approved by a unanimous vote of nine ministers: Herrerías Guerra, Espinosa Betanzo, Ríos González, Esquivel Mossa, Batres Guadarrama, Ortiz Ahlf, Figueroa Mejía, Guerrero García, and President Hugo Aguilar Ortiz. The declaration will take effect upon notification of the resolutive points to the local Congress, which must adjust its treasury law; the resolution will also be published in the Official Gazette of Coahuila and in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación.

The case file was registered on January 30, 2026, after the lawsuit was received on January 29; admission occurred on February 4, and the closing of instructions on May 6. The General Secretary of Agreements, Daniel Álvarez Toledo, certified the text on September 30, 2026, for publication.

The ruling closes the revenue stream that several state treasuries maintained over the most basic administrative act of civil status: in practice, no family in Coahuila can be forced to pay to register a newborn, and local congresses with similar fees in their treasury laws are warned that the Court considers such a practice unconstitutional from the outset, as it violates the right to identity and the best interests of the child.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, November 4, 2026, Judicial Branch (Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation), p. 140 (official reference: Unconstitutionality Action 27/2026).