SCJN annuls audit of federal resources in Contla de Juan Cuamatzi

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared the invalidity of the audit conducted by the Congress of the State of Tlaxcala and its Superior Oversight Body (OFS) regarding the federal public resources received and spent by the municipality of Contla de Juan Cuamatzi during the second half of the 2024 fiscal year. The decision, adopted unanimously by nine votes in Constitutional Controversy 245/2025, was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation number 246/2026, dated September 10, 2026, in the Judicial Power section.

The highest court considered that the intervention of the local Congress and its oversight body violated the distribution of competencies provided for in Articles 79 and 116 of the Federal Constitution, by reviewing federal resources whose auditing corresponds exclusively to the Superior Audit Office of the Federation.

The origin of the conflict

The lawsuit was filed on October 2, 2025, by the Municipal Syndic of Contla de Juan Cuamatzi, Gilberto Flores Maldonado, against the Congress of Tlaxcala and the Superior Auditor of the OFS. The municipality claimed the invalidity of the auditing process of its federal resources for the period from July 1 to December 31, 2024, which culminated in the issuance of the Individual Report of Results of the Superior Review and Audit and the opinions approved by the Plenary of the local Congress on August 14, 2025, published in the Official State Gazette on August 25 of that year.

The instruction of the case was assigned to Minister Loretta Ortiz Ahlf, who served as the rapporteur. The matter was resolved in a Plenary session on April 13, 2026.

The invasion of competence

The court determined that the auditing of federal resources spent by municipalities—including federal contributions—corresponds to the Superior Audit Office of the Federation, while state auditing entities may only review local resources and public debt. Regarding federal participations, state bodies may only intervene under the terms of the coordination provided for in Article 79 of the Constitution.

In this case, the Plenary noted that the auditing of federal participations was not based on any coordination and collaboration agreement with the Superior Audit Office of the Federation, therefore the OFS acted without jurisdictional authorization. Among the indicators reviewed, it was observed that the municipality spent 104.5% of its income between July 1 and August 8, 2024, and 164.7% between August 9 and 30 of the same year, with a financial autonomy of only 3.4% and 0.4%, respectively.

Effects of the sentence

The declaration of invalidity applies to the Individual Results Report and the agreements containing the rulings by which the public account of the municipality was declared reviewed and audited, solely regarding federal resources. The judgment shall take effect upon the notification of its operative points to the Congress of Tlaxcala.

• The powers of the State’s Superior Oversight Body to carry out the corresponding investigations and promote the actions it deems appropriate remain open.
• If the local Congress issues a new decree regarding the public account for the 2024 fiscal year, it must adhere to what is set forth in the judgment.
• The ruling orders the publication of the judgment in the Official Gazette of the Federation, the Judicial Weekly of the Federation, and the Official Gazette of the State of Tlaxcala.

The resolution sets a relevant precedent regarding the distribution of competencies in the review of municipal public accounts, by reaffirming that federal resources can only be audited by the Superior Audit of the Federation or by local bodies when a current coordination agreement exists. For the municipalities of Tlaxcala and the rest of the country, the ruling delimits the scope of action of state congresses and protects municipal treasury autonomy against intrusions by incompetent authorities.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, number 246/2026, September 10, 2026, Judicial Branch section, p. 133 (official reference: Constitutional Controversy 245/2025).