The Whales of the Gulf of California v. Ministry of the Environment and the Agency for Safety, Energy, and the Environment (ASEA)

On October 1, 2025, a non-profit, representing The Whales of the Gulf of California, filed amparo lawsuit against the environmental impact permits issued by the Ministry of the Environment and the ASEA, for “Saguaro Project LNG”, since they were issued in violation of the constitutional and treaty-based duty to protect the right to a healthy environment—as understood from an eco-centric perspective—and of the obligations to conserve biodiversity. In 2006, the Ministry of the Environment authorized the construction of a natural gas regasification terminal off the coast of the community of Puerto Libertad, Sonora. In 2018, the company decided to replace the authorized industrial project with a natural gas liquefaction terminal, and ASEA authorized it without conducting a comprehensive study of the project modifications. This industrial development is known as the “Saguaro Project.” The Saguaro Project is a natural gas liquefaction plant that will transport gas from Texas through Mexico to be exported on LNG carriers via the Gulf of California to Asia. The problem identified is that LNG carriers will be passing through this ecosystem, known as the “Aquarium of the World,” because it is the home to 39% of the world’s marine mammal species, overlapping with at least 12 cetacean species habitats. The environmental authorizations did not consider the project’s impact on the whale species that live, migrate, feed and breed in the Gulf. The lawsuit argues that the whales should have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the environmental permits, because the approved project would disrupt their life cycles and jeopardize the conservation and protection of their species in the Gulf of California. Therefore, the lawsuit calls for protective, conservation, and care measures commensurate with the recognition that the whales possess intrinsic rights derived from respect for their life cycles: migration, feeding, reproduction, freedom of movement, and the right to life itself. The complaint seeks two reliefs: first, the designation of the Gulf of California as a critical habitat under the General Wildlife Law; and second, a declaration that the environmental permits are unconstitutional due to violations of Articles 4 and 27 of the Constitution, as well as various international treaties such as the Law of the Sea Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Escazú Agreement. On October 6, 2025, the District Court agreed to hear the case. The case is pending.