En esta noticia
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, SCJN, issued a ruling that changes the rules for the transport of livestock in Mexico. The Full Court determined that several state permits can no longer be required. “The transit permit can exist as an instrument to prove ownership”, the highest court stated in its ruling.
The decision was made when ruling on Constitutional Controversy 216/2025, considered in the Full Court session on March 10, 2026. In the ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that certain local requirements in Nayarit encroached on federal powers, so their application has been without effect from now on.
In the official statement, the Supreme Court explained that some state provisions sought to control the movement of animals through local permits.
“In practice, they established a state system of prior authorization to move livestock,” the court stated, which contravenes the powers established in the Mexican Constitution.
The Supreme Court upholds ownership documents, but not state controls
The ruling distinguishes between the documents used to prove ownership of livestock and those that function as mandatory permits for their transport. The justices upheld part of the Nayarit Livestock Law that recognizes administrative instruments to prove possession or transfer of animals.
According to the statement, these mechanisms may remain in place because they do not constitute a mandatory filter for the movement of livestock.
“These provisions fall within the authority of the federal entities to legislate in civil matters and administrative matters,” the Court explained in justifying the validity of those records.
State permits to move livestock are invalidated
However, the Full Court invalidated various articles of the same law that required state permits before transporting or exporting livestock, products, and livestock by-products. Among them were transit permits numbered by local authorities or authorizations issued by inspectors.
The Supreme Court underscored that this type of control falls within the federal sphere, especially in health matters.
“These provisions invade the sphere of the Federation’s competence in matters of general health,” concluded the court, making it clear that states cannot impose prior authorization for the movement of livestock.