SCJN declares information reservation for national security in Tamaulipas unconstitutional

The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared the invalidity of Article 4, last paragraph, of the Transparency and Access to Public Information Law of the State of Tamaulipas, in its normative portion “in accordance with the terms established by this Law.” The resolution, adopted by a unanimous vote of nine in the session of April 7, 2026, was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on September 8, 2026, within Constitutional Controversy 199/2025, promoted by the Federation against the Executive and Legislative Powers of said entity.

The presentation was handled by Minister Giovanni Azael Figueroa Mejía, with Secretary Omar Cruz Camacho and Auxiliary Secretary Antonio Flores Arellano Bernal. The lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2025, and admitted for processing on September 24 of that year, with the Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Congress of the Union as interested third parties.

The merits of the jurisdictional conflict

The Federation challenged the provision because, in its view, it allowed local legislation to define its own grounds for reserving information for reasons of national security, a matter that the Constitution reserves exclusively for the Congress of the Union. The Plenary considered the argument well-founded, holding that national security does not protect local interests, but rather constitutional assets of national scope such as territorial integrity, sovereignty, and institutional stability.

The court recalled that Article 73, fraction XXIX-M, of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States attributes to the Congress of the Union the exclusive power to legislate on matters of national security, a power exercised through the National Security Law. Consequently, the federative entities lack the competence to define, expand, or modify the concept of national security or its grounds for application.

The challenged norm and its effects

The invalidated provision was part of the law issued by Decree No. 66-368, published in the Official Gazette of the State of Tamaulipas on July 10, 2025. The text established that information could be classified as temporarily reserved for reasons of public interest or national security “in accordance with the terms established by this Law,” which, according to the Court, granted the local legislator a power that does not belong to them.

The declaration of invalidity will take effect upon notification of the resolutive points to the Congress of the State of Tamaulipas. From then on, state authorities must refrain from applying the invalidated portion and adhere to the constitutional design and the applicable general and federal laws for classifying reserved information.

Parties and representation

The following representations appeared in the trial:

• For the Federation, Ernestina Godoy Ramos, Legal Counsel to the Federal Executive.
• For the Legislative Branch of Tamaulipas, Deputy Eva Araceli Reyes González, President of the Board of Directors of the local Congress.
• For the state Executive Branch, Jorge Luis Beas Gámez, Undersecretary of Legality and Government Services.

The ruling was signed by the President of the Plenary, Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, and the General Secretary of Agreements, Daniel Álvarez Toledo, and its publication was ordered in the Official Gazette of the Federation, the Official Gazette of the State of Tamaulipas, and the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette.

Relevance of the decision

The resolution reaffirms the constitutional distribution of competencies between the Federation and the states by preventing local legislatures from regulating the withholding of information for national security reasons. For citizens, the ruling reinforces the principle of maximum publicity and guarantees that the criteria for classifying sensitive information remain uniform and centralized, preventing each entity from setting its own limits to the right of access to information.

Source: Official Gazette of the Federation, September 8, 2026, Judicial Branch, pgs. 210-220 (official reference: Constitutional Controversy 199/2025).