Court invalidates municipal charge to railways and electrical infrastructure

The Plenary Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared the invalidity of the normative portions of Article 24, fraction I, subsection k), numeral 1, of the Revenue Law of the Municipality of Zaragoza, San Luis Potosí, which charged land-use licenses for railway tracks, electrical substations, transformers, high-voltage lines, and energy-generating facilities. The resolution was issued in the session of August 4, 2026, and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, within the judgment of Constitutional Controversy 178/2026, the text of which begins on page 183.

The origin: a fee of 600 UMA in the local revenue law

The challenged norm was Decree 0439, Revenue Law of the Municipality of Zaragoza for the 2026 fiscal year, published in the extraordinary edition of the Official State Gazette on December 30, 2025. Its Article 24, fraction I, subsection k), numeral 1, established a fee of 600.00 UMA under the concept of “Special installations and infrastructure,” a catalog that included both ordinary municipal works and components of the national electrical grid and the railway network.

The lawsuit was promoted by the Federal Executive Power through Legal Counsel Esthela Damián Peralta, with an official letter submitted to the judicial mailbox on February 16, 2026, and received the following day at the Judicial Certification and Correspondence Office of the Supreme Court. The case was filed on February 24, 2026, and assigned to Minister Yasmín Esquivel Mossa as the instructing judge; admission was granted on the following February 27.

The Executive and Legislative Powers of San Luis Potosí argued that the charge was an administrative fee for an urban verification service, protected under Article 115 of the Constitution. The Plenary dismissed this interpretation: the norm did not establish a general fee applicable to any civil work, but rather a specific tariff on infrastructure reserved for the Federation.

What was annulled and why

The judgment distinguishes between two blocks. Regarding railway tracks, the Plenary concluded that the charge materially falls upon a general communication route, a priority area for national development whose construction, operation, right-of-way, concessions, and permits fall within the federal jurisdiction. It added that, pursuant to Article 115, fraction IV, of the Constitution, assets of the public domain of the Federation are exempt from real estate property taxes, and that railway tracks constructed under a concession or assignment are part of that domain.

Regarding the electrical infrastructure, the Court held that municipal land-use powers cannot translate into specific charges on components of the National Electric System. The portions directly annulled were:

• “electrical substation”
• “transformers”
• “electricity”
• “railway tracks”
• “energy generating facilities”
• “high-voltage lines”

Furthermore, due to a direct and necessary relationship of dependence, the portions “thermoelectric” and “tower or mast (poles, structures, towers, etc.)” were declared invalid by extension.

Eight votes for railways, seven for electrical energy

The issue of railway tracks was approved by a unanimous vote of eight Ministers: Herrerías Guerra, Espinosa Betanzo, Ríos González, Esquivel Mossa, Batres Guadarrama, Ortiz Ahlf, Figueroa Mejía, and President Aguilar Ortiz. Minister Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García did not attend the session, having provided prior notice.

The electrical energy block was approved by a majority of seven votes, with the dissenting vote of Minister Figueroa Mejía; the invalidity by extension followed the same voting pattern. Ministers Herrerías Guerra and Batres Guadarrama announced respective concurring votes—published alongside the ruling—and President Aguilar Ortiz reserved his right to formulate his own.

The Plenary also endorsed the argument that these local charges could affect the accessibility and affordability of the electrical service, in violation of human dignity and due diligence, and warned that allowing differentiated municipal regimes would fragment the regulation of a matter under federal jurisdiction.

Precedents and effects

The decision was based on a line of previous cases resolved by the same Plenary against municipal revenue laws:

• Constitutional Controversy 34/2025, regarding Nuevo Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, concerning charges on gas pipelines and photocells, resolved on September 18, 2025, by seven votes.
• Constitutional Controversy 44/2025, regarding Cusihuiriachi, Chihuahua, concerning a tariff on electrical substations, resolved on October 7, 2025, by six votes.
• Constitutional Controversy 65/2025, regarding Fresnillo, Zacatecas, resolved on October 7, 2025, by a unanimous vote of nine.
• Constitutional Controversy 67/2025, regarding Villa de Arriaga, San Luis Potosí, concerning wind generation and railway tracks, resolved on October 27, 2025.

The invalidity shall take effect upon the notification of the operative points to the Congress of the State of San Luis Potosí, and the judgment must also be notified to the Municipality of Zaragoza, as it is the authority responsible for applying the revenue law. The ruling orders its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la Federación), the state Official Gazette (Periódico Oficial), and the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette (Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta).

The impact extends beyond a single municipality: the criterion reinforces the constitutional limit on municipal charges regarding strategic federal infrastructure, such that city councils that maintain specific rates for railways, substations, or transmission lines are exposed to the same declaration of invalidity.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, October 28, 2026, First Section, p. 183 (official reference: Constitutional Controversy 178/2026).