Mexican Supreme Court Rules on Arbitrability of Administrative Contracts

The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (“SCJN”) issued on February 10, 2026 a landmark ruling in the Amparo en Revisión 60/2025 which considered the new national framework for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under Mexico’s Ley General de Mecanismos Alternativos de Solución de Controversias (“ADR Law”). The reform introduced by the ADR Law aimed to unify a fragmented patchwork of local ADR rules. The ruling forms part of a broader regional toward the constitutionalization of ADR mechanisms, a topic previously discussed in this Blog by other authors (see here, here, and here).

The case was brought by the Mexico City National Chamber of Commerce (CANACO), which questioned the manner in which the ADR Law regulates arbitration and mediation, and the constitutionality of certain requirements—for example, requiring mediators to obtain certification to practice. Ultimately, SCJN adopted a constitutional interpretation (interpretación conforme) that both upheld the legality of the law and at the same time, reinforced the use of ADR in Mexico.

This post focuses on SCJN’s analysis of Article 115 of the ADR Law, which provides that “in no case will arbitration apply in matters of administrative justice”.

To unpack the implications of SCJN’s analysis, this post first summarizes the objectives of the ADR Law and the concerns that prompted the Amparo proceeding, before turning to the Court’s reasoning on Article 115.

I. The ADR Law

The ADR Law, published on 26 January 2024, establishes a national, institutional system for ADR conducted before public or certified private mediators. It sets out the guiding principles for practicing ADR, regulates public and private ADR centers, creates a national registry for settlement agreements, and establishes the obligations and procedures that public and private certified mediators (personas facilitadoras) are required to follow. The main advantage of conducting a mediation before a public or certified private mediator under the ADR Law is that settlement agreements reached before certified private mediators, once registered, are deemed res judicata and may be enforced in the same manner as a final and binding judgment.

The ADR Law contains a series of provisions that generated uncertainty among arbitrators, mediators and ADR institutions when taking on new mandates. The Amparo proceeding sought to clarify the scope and interpretation of several of these provisions.

First, CANACO argued that Articles 4 and 5 of the ADR Law were unclear regarding the scope of application of the ADR Law. Article 4 lists “arbitration” as an ADR mechanism, while Article 5 defines ADR mechanisms as procedures for “avenencia” (procedures aimed at reaching an amicable settlement by agreement of the parties). This created uncertainty as to whether the legal framework established by the ADR Law could also extend to an adversarial proceeding such as arbitration. The Court interpreted Article 4 as merely an enunciative recognition of arbitration within the broader concept of ADR, while confirming that arbitration remains primarily governed by the Mexican Commercial Code, which constitutes a near ad verbatim adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Second, CANACO contended that Article 115 contained an unjustified blanket provision that could bar arbitration across the entire administrative field, without defining what constitutes an administrative matter, thereby creating legal uncertainty, and placing arbitration at a disadvantage vis‑à‑vis other ADRs. This issue is addressed in more detail in the next section.

Third, SCJN examined whether the ADR Law restricted the practice of ‘private’ mediation in Mexico by establishing sanctions against individuals who conduct mediation without first obtaining the required certification. In connection with this claim, CANACO advanced several other arguments highlighting how traditional commercial mediation services, such as those provided by the 2025 CANACO, the 2014 ICC Mediation Rules, the 2020 LCIA Mediation Rules, and the 2021 ICDR Mediation Rules, could be affected if institutions and mediators were required to fully comply with the ADR Law.

The SCJN reached a sensible solution to this issue. It agreed with CANACO’s position that the mediation regime in Mexico is composed of three different categories: (i) private mediation (commonly used in commercial transactions); (ii) certified mediation (private mediators, who obtain certification after completing a training, practice and examination process); and (iii) public mediation (carried out by public mediators within court-annexed mediation centers). Accordingly, the Court held that the ADR Law must be interpreted so that the sanction therein applies only to individuals who provide services in ‘certified mediations’ without having obtained a certification from the Mexican authorities. Under this interpretation, commercial or private mediations remain a valid and viable mechanism for both domestic and international parties transacting in Mexico, without the need to comply with the ADR Law.

II. Arbitrability of Administrative Matters

Questions about the arbitrability of a claim have long posed difficulties for arbitrators (See here, here, and here for recent discussions about arbitrability across different subject matters). The wording of Article 115 of the ADR Law invited jurisdictional challenges. By forbidding the arbitrability of matters pertaining to ‘administrative justice’, arbitrators were faced with the risk of a party waiving this provision as a jurisdictional bar in a proceeding.

Readers of this Blog will be familiar with disputes involving administrative or public-law-related matters (see here and here). These matters range widely, raising the question of which arbitrations can truly be considered as being of a public-law nature. These may include disputes involving: (i) a state-owned entity; (ii) public infrastructure or regulated activities; (iii) a public entity that has provided a guaranty or participated in a joint venture; (iv) a party that claims that the other breached an administrative norm (e.g., an environmental regulation); or (v) public interests implications, among other cases.

Mexico, like several other jurisdictions, splits the jurisdiction of administrative and civil disputes to different courts or tribunals. Administrative tribunals are often tasked with resolving disputes arising from actions undertaken by the government or public entities in the exercise of their official powers. The issue raised under the ADR Law was (i) whether disputes that had previously been considered arbitrable fell within the concept of ‘administrative justice’; and, if so, (ii) whether such a restriction was constitutional.

On the first point, SCJN applied a two-step analysis that allowed it to conclude that Article 115 did not impose new limitations on arbitrability. The Court recalled that the term ‘administrative justice’ has been linked to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Mexican administrative tribunals. Under this interpretation, the restriction would operate as a limit on objective arbitrability (acts of authority are not arbitrable), while contractual disputes would remain capable of being submitted to arbitration.

Second, the Court tied its interpretation to the long-standing doctrine regarding the dual role of the State (see here for a discussion of the difference between sovereign and commercial acts), and to prior SCJN cases confirming that public entities may submit to arbitration when acting as private parties in matters involving disposable rights. In this regard, Mexican case law and doctrine distinguish between: (i) acts that are materially administrative in nature (actos materialmente administrativos); and (ii) the contractual activities of the State. The Court reasoned that only the former may be excluded from arbitration.

As such, Article 115 does not introduce new restrictions, but rather codifies limitations that already existed under Mexican law. This conclusion reflects and builds upon the complex relationship between commercial parties and the State, demonstrating that absolute restrictions on arbitrability do not necessarily reflect the realities of private and public investment relationships.

III. Conclusion

Article 115 of the ADR Law nevertheless serves as a useful reminder to arbitrators and practitioners of the risks posed by disputes involving a public or administrative element. For those practicing arbitration in Mexico, SCJN’s judgment in the Amparo en Revisión 60/2025 provides an initial framework for assessing the arbitrability of a dispute.

However, this decision should not be confused with a blanket authorization for arbitrators to decide, without limitation, whether a dispute falls outside Article 115. The key inquiry remains fact-specific: the nature of the State’s conduct, the commercial reality of the transaction, and the claims actually submitted to arbitration.

* The authors acted as legal counsel in the proceedings before the Supreme Court in a pro bono basis supported by Creel, García-Cuellar, Aiza y Enríquez. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institutions with which they are affiliated or their clients.