The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in resolving contradiction of criteria 201/2025, determined that the acts consisting of the blocking, suspension and/or limitation of the funds in an account by a banking institution, when performed based on the stipulations of the contract entered into with the user, do not constitute acts of authority for purposes of the amparo proceeding.

The Plenary’s justification is based on the fact that, in order to determine whether an act of a private individual can be equated to an act of authority, its material content and the existence of a link with the State that implies the exercise of a public function must be taken into account. In this sense, it is not enough that the act is provided for in a legal rule, but it is necessary that the individual acts by means of a public power or in the exercise of state functions.

Thus, when a banking institution blocks, suspends or limits the funds in an account as contractually agreed, even when there is a basis in Article 52 of the Law of Credit Institutions, it is not acting in the exercise of a public power, but within an agreement of wills with the user, and therefore it is not in a position equivalent to that of an authority, nor does it imply that the State acts through the banking institution.

Therefore, the cause of inadmissibility of the amparo proceeding established in article 61, section XXIII, in connection with article 5, section II, of the Amparo Act, is present.

This thesis was published on Friday, March 13, 2026 in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación under digital record 2031849.

For any questions or legal assistance, please contact admin@gpdlaw.mx