The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has closed the door on Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera—the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel—using the *amparo* legal mechanism to challenge alleged human rights violations attributed to United States authorities, including Judge Brian M. Cogan and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in New York.
In its electronic docket listings, the country’s highest court dismissed on Monday—on grounds of inadmissibility—a petition for review filed by attorney Christian Camacho Ruiz (who is not publicly recognized as part of the drug lord’s defense team). The petition challenged the refusal of lower courts to grant *amparo* relief, as those courts had determined that such a legal remedy is applicable only against acts committed by Mexican authorities, not foreign ones.
Consequently, the Court did not analyze the merits of the case but instead upheld the ruling issued on February 6 by the First Collegiate Tribunal of the Fifteenth Circuit. That ruling had affirmed the decision of the First District Court in the State of Baja California—issued in November 2025—to dismiss El Chapo Guzmán’s *amparo* petition, in which he alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty, detention, confinement, and *incommunicado* status while abroad, to the detriment of his human rights.
The SCJN noted that the petitioner was challenging a resolution issued by a Collegiate Tribunal within the context of a formal complaint proceeding; therefore, “none of the specific scenarios” outlined in Article 81 of the *Amparo* Law were applicable. It further added that the ruling—having originated from a terminal judicial body—”constitutes a definitive and unassailable resolution,” rendering any subsequent means of legal defense inadmissible. Guzmán Loera was extradited from Mexico to the United States on January 19, 2017, and on July 17, 2019, he was sentenced by Judge Brian M. Cogan to life imprisonment plus an additional 30 years, along with the forfeiture of $12,666,191,704, for crimes related to drug trafficking in the United States.
According to court records, “El Chapo” Guzmán argued that the dismissal of his *amparo* petition constituted a legal grievance, as he is serving a life sentence—a penalty he deems “unusual” and in violation of Article 22 of the Mexican Constitution. He maintained that, in extradition cases, the requesting State must commit not to impose life imprisonment.
He further asserted that the Mexican State has an obligation to protect its citizens, to investigate potential acts of torture—based on standards such as the Istanbul Protocol—and to ensure that the *amparo* proceeding serves as an effective remedy for rights violations, even when such violations occur outside national territory.
He identified Judge Brian M. Cogan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (acting in New York), and the ADX Florence maximum-security federal prison in Colorado, United States—where he is currently incarcerated—as the parties responsible for the violation of his rights.
However, the District Judge and the Collegiate Tribunal concluded that the *amparo* petition was inadmissible because such proceedings may only be brought against Mexican authorities; consequently, foreign authorities cannot be held liable. Furthermore, they noted that domestic courts lack the jurisdiction to take action abroad or to compel compliance with their rulings—actions that would, moreover, infringe upon the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Finally, they clarified that the *pro persona* principle does not permit the circumvention of the legal requirements governing the admissibility of such judicial proceedings.
