The Supreme Court invalidates charges for copies and street lighting in Hidalgo

The Plenary Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared unconstitutional the charges for certified copies, certificates, comparisons, and digitalization of documents, as well as public lighting fees, contained in the Revenue Laws for the 2026 Fiscal Year of eight municipalities in the State of Hidalgo. The resolution of Unconstitutionality Action 29/2026, approved in a session on May 12, 2026, was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on Friday, October 9, 2026 (No. 277/2026) and binds the Congress of the State of Hidalgo to adjust the invalidated fees within a period of 60 calendar days.

The judgment resolved the lawsuit filed by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), signed by its president María del Rosario Piedra Ibarra, received on January 29, 2026, and registered on January 30, 2026, assigned to the instructing minister Yasmín Esquivel Mossa. The lawsuit was admitted on February 6, 2026, the Legislative and Executive Powers of Hidalgo submitted reports in March, and the instruction phase closed on April 20, 2026.

The challenged norms were published in the Official Gazette of Hidalgo on December 31, 2025. The CNDH alleged violations of articles 14, 16, and 31, fraction IV, of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, and the Plenary had already invalidated similar provisions when resolving unconstitutionality actions 104/2020, 55/2023, 18/2023, 39/2024, and 24/2025.

Copies, certificates, and digitalization: fees unrelated to actual cost

The Plenary concluded that charges for the reproduction of information bear no reasonable relationship to the cost of the service, generate differentiated fees without objective justification, and, in several instances, do not specify whether the fee applies to each page, the document, the file, or a bundle, which violates the principles of proportionality, equity, and legal certainty. It also noted that digitalization does not inherently imply a proportional expenditure and that, if the requesting person provides the storage device, delivery must be free of charge.

The invalidated fees include:

• Certified copies from 1 to 5 pages: 147.00 pesos.
• Issuance of certificates from municipal archives: from 15.30 to 164.00 pesos per page.
• Each digitized page: 1.50 pesos.
• Certified copy of more than 5 pages: 29.50 pesos per page.
• Compared copies of urban development and ecology documents: from 88.90 to 506.70 pesos.

The invalidity covers article 17 of the revenue laws of Acatlán, Acaxochitlán, Actopan, Agua Blanca de Iturbide, Ajacuba, Alfajayucan, Almoloya, and Apan, and article 29 of Acatlán, Actopan, Almoloya, and Apan.

Public lighting: an electricity tax outside local jurisdiction

Regarding public lighting, the Plenary Court determined that the contribution, although the local legislator refers to it as a “fee,” is materially a tax on electrical energy consumption, the regulation of which falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Congress of the Union pursuant to Article 73, fraction XXIX, numeral 5, subsection a) of the Constitution. The flaw lies in the tax base: the total electrical energy consumption of the contractor, with rates of 5.0% for domestic use, 5.0% commercial, and 1.5% industrial when no agreement exists with the Federal Electricity Commission, and a cap of 10% of the consumption fee.

For this reason, Article 10 of the revenue laws of Acaxochitlán, Actopan, Agua Blanca de Iturbide, Ajacuba, Alfajayucan, Almoloya, and Apan were invalidated.

Effects, binding to Congress, and dissenting opinions

The declaration of invalidity shall take effect upon notification of the operative parts of the ruling to the Congress of the State of Hidalgo, which must adapt the normative elements of the admissible charges within 60 calendar days, providing only for fees linked to the actual cost of the service, which are well-founded and motivated, without vague formulas. The judgment must also be notified to the involved municipalities and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, the Official Gazette of Hidalgo, and the Judicial Weekly of the Federation.

The merits were approved by a unanimous vote of nine, with reservations: Minister Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra cast a dissenting vote against the invalidity of Article 17, and Minister Lenia Batres Guadarrama issued a dissenting and concurring opinion, in which she distanced herself from the considerations regarding lighting and maintained that the absence of specific motivation for the fees is not sufficient to declare them unconstitutional.

The resolution directly affects the taxpayers of those eight municipalities, who can no longer be forced to pay the invalidated fees, and obliges the city councils and the Congress of Hidalgo to redesign their charges using objective parameters before the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, No. 277/2026, Friday, October 9, 2026, Judicial Branch, p. 109 (official reference: Unconstitutionality Action 29/2026).