The Supreme Court postpones rulings on the biometric CURP until a criterion is established

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has decided to postpone the issuance of resolutions in the amparos and contradictions of criteria in which the constitutionality analysis of the biometric CURP and the Single Identity Platform remains pending. This determination is contained in General Agreement 13/2026-AAG, approved unanimously on October 14, 2026, and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on Thursday, October 22, 2026, in the Judicial Power section.

The questioned regulatory system stems from the Decree published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on July 16, 2025, which reformed, added, and repealed various provisions of the General Law on Forced Disappearance of Persons, Disappearance Committed by Private Individuals, and the National Search System for Persons, as well as the General Population Law, regarding the strengthening of the search, location, and identification of disappeared persons. The provisions whose constitutionality remains under analysis are articles 91, second paragraph; 91 Bis; 91 Ter; 91 Quater; 91 Quinquies; 91 Sexies; and 114 Bis of the General Population Law.

The agreement clarifies that the pause also applies to “any other provision that integrates a regulatory system” relating to the implementation and mandatory nature of the biometric CURP, the Single Identity Platform, the mechanisms for consultation, transfer, or validation of said document, and the integration program into the National Population Registry.

What the agreement orders

The SINGLE point of General Agreement 13/2026-AAG establishes that, in the contradictions of criteria under the jurisdiction of the Regional Plenaries, as well as in the direct amparos and amparos under review under the jurisdiction of the Collegiate Circuit Courts, the proceedings shall continue to leave the matter ready for resolution and then postpone the issuance of the ruling.

Reactivation is conditioned upon two events: that the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation establishes the respective criterion or criteria, and that the corresponding Plenary General Agreement is issued.

Matters placed on hold

• Amparos under review filed and pending resolution in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation: 297/2026, 347/2026, 366/2026, 382/2026, 385/2026, 402/2026, and 409/2026.
• 138 amparos under review pending resolution as of September 30, 2026, in which the constitutionality analysis of those provisions remains pending.
• This data comes from official letter OAJ/COGEPI/DGEJ/T/1678/2026, signed by the Director General of Judicial Statistics of the Judicial Administration Body.

Legal Basis and Voting

The Plenary relied on Article 94, fifth and ninth paragraphs, of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States; Article 17, fraction VII, of the Organic Law of the Federal Judiciary; and Article 37 of the Regulatory Law of Fractions I and II of Article 105 of the Constitution. Recital SIX adds the power of attraction provided for in Article 107, fraction V, last paragraph, and fraction VIII, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

Recitals FIVE and SEVEN invoke Article 1, third paragraph, and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: the aim is to preserve legal certainty and effective access to justice for litigants and to avoid contradictory judgments or those contrary to the criteria established by the High Court.

The agreement was approved in a private session on October 14, 2026, by a unanimous vote of Ministers Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra, Irving Espinosa Betanzo, María Estela Ríos González, Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, Loretta Ortiz Ahlf, Giovanni Azael Figueroa Mejía, Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García, and President Hugo Aguilar Ortiz. Minister Lenia Batres Guadarrama was absent. It is signed by Hugo Aguilar Ortiz himself and the General Secretary of Agreements, Daniel Álvarez Toledo.

Validity and dissemination

General Agreement 13/2026-AAG will enter into force the day following its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation, that is, on October 23, 2026. It must also be published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and in electronic public consultation media, pursuant to Article 65, fraction I, of the General Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information, and brought to the attention of the Regional Plenaries and the Collegiate Circuit Courts.

The practical consequence is that litigation regarding the biometric CURP will continue its procedural process, but without a judgment on the merits: neither the collegiate courts nor the regional plenaries may define the constitutionality of the system until the Plenary establishes a single criterion. Thus, the judicial definition of an identification system that reaches the entire population—and upon which the mechanisms for consultation, transfer, and validation of the document depend, as well as the integration program into the National Population Registry—is frozen indefinitely.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, October 22, 2026, Judicial Power section (First Section), pp. 100-103 (official reference: General Agreement 13/2026-AAG).