Supreme Court invalidates state extortion provisions

Reporting and context

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation invalidated provisions of extortion laws in Tabasco and Baja California Sur after finding that the state legislatures had entered an area reserved for Congress. Luces del Siglo reports that the court’s decisions concerned both the authority to legislate on extortion and the criminal procedure that applies to the offense. The court did not question the need to combat extortion; the dispute involved which level of government may establish the rules.

In the Tabasco case, the Federal Attorney General’s Office, known as the FGR, challenged Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the state law. The court said Article 73 of the Constitution reserves the relevant legislation on extortion and criminal procedure to Congress. It also invalidated Article 15 by extension because it shared the same constitutional problem, while proposals involving Articles 16, 17 and part of Article 18 did not pass. The ruling followed a discussion about how far the court may extend an invalidation to provisions not directly challenged.

For Baja California Sur, the FGR and the National Human Rights Commission challenged the state legislation. The court unanimously invalidated Article 3 and reached the required seven votes to invalidate Article 4; Articles 5 and 7 were also removed by extension. Articles 14 and 15 remained in force after receiving five votes, short of the qualified majority. Luces del Siglo reports that the criminal-law effects in Baja California Sur will apply retroactively to February 1, 2026, when the challenged law took effect. The source account presents the ruling as a division of authority between state and federal lawmakers.