Lithium exploitation, exclusive to the State, the Court rules

Applying the principle of constitutional supremacythe second chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) recognized yesterday that the State has exclusivity in the exploitation of lithium and radioactive minerals, having been declared public utility.

By unanimous vote of four votes, the second chamber approved the project of Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán that rejected, that is, left without study, an injunction filed by a mining company that operates in Chihuahua in which it challenged the decree to reform the Mining Law of the April 20, 2022, promoted by the then president Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The complainants, Guillermo Villalobos Olivas, Gonzalo Ceballos Fontes, Alfonso Prieto Prieto and Grupo Bararal are holders of mining concession 246359, regarding the San Pedro lot, located in the municipality of Satevó, Chihuahua.

They argued that the 2022 reform imposes limitations that affect the concession title that was granted to them, also violating constitutional articles, because at the same time, through a secondary law, granted rights are restricted or canceled.

Rejects protection

However, the second chamber left the protection under review 540/2024 without study, citing the reform to article 27 of the Constitution that was published on October 31 of this year, specifically in its sixth paragraph, which established, among other issues, that In the case of radioactive minerals and lithium, no concessions will be granted.

In that sense, even if the unconstitutionality of the Mining Law were declared as claimed by the complaining party, it would not obtain any benefit given that it subsists in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States in its article 27, that the Mexican State will not grant concessions in lithiumpresents the project approved by the second room.

It also recognizes that even if a concessionaire agreed to an injunction against the reform of the Mining Law, it would have no benefit, since the constitutional norm prevents the existence of concessions on that specific mineral; and although it is maintained in the concepts of violation that the secondary law claimed transgresses the principle of non-retroactivity to detriment, such an argument cannot be validly raised with respect to a constitutional norm..