- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Mexico
- /
- Ruling on Constitutionality of banning the distribution of non-recycled plastic bags in Oaxaca
Ruling on Constitutionality of banning the distribution of non-recycled plastic bags in Oaxaca
About this case
Filing year
2019
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Mexico → Supreme Court
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → GHG emissions reduction and trading (Global) → Other (Global)
Principal law
Mexico → ConstitutionMexico → Oaxaca´s Solid Waste Prevention and Management Law
At issue
Whether the state of Oaxaca’s ban on the distribution of non-recycled single-use plastic bags to protect the right to a healthy environment affects the right to carry-out business of plastic manufacturing companies.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
10/25/2023
Decision
Summary
In 2019, the State Legislature of Oaxaca made significant amendments to the state's Solid Waste Prevention and Management Law. One notable change included a prohibition on businesses distributing non-recycled plastic bags. Promptly, on July 31, 2019, a plastic bag manufacturer initiated legal action, asserting that these amendments violated constitutional rights, explicitly impeding their ability to conduct business.
The Third District Judge in the State of Oaxaca dismissed the case on August 2, 2019, citing the plaintiff's failure to prove its standing as a dedicated plastic bag manufacturer convincingly. The plaintiff appealed this decision on September 7, 2020. Subsequently, the Second Circuit Court on Civil and Administrative Matters of the Thirteenth Circuit overturned the District Judge's ruling, recognizing the plaintiff's standing and forwarding the case to the Supreme Court of Justice. Notably, the Circuit Court highlighted the constitutional dimension of the case, particularly the interpretation of the right to a healthy environment, lacking precedent.
On October 25, 2023, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court issued its ruling. The Court concluded that the ban on non-recycled plastic bags did not violate the fundamental right to conduct business. Employing a proportionality analysis, the Court assessed the policy's alignment with the constitutionally valid objective of environmental protection. It found the policy to be both appropriate and necessary, outweighing any encroachment on the right to conduct business.
The Court considered the broader environmental impact of plastic pollution, linking plastic production to climate change through GHG emissions and its detrimental effects on marine ecosystems. These effects, including disruption to carbon sequestration processes in oceans, underscored the urgency of the state's environmental policy. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the ban, emphasizing the paramount importance of environmental preservation over individual business interests.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance